^LIBRARY OF CONgRESS. 



<=£7^ 



! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, f 



/ZJ/Sb C- 



THERAPEUTVE, 



ST. JOHN NEVER IN ASIA MINOR. 



IREN^US, 

THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 



THE FRAUDS OF THE CHURCHMEN OF THE SECOND 
CENTURY EXPOSED. 



/in 



PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 
GEORGE REBER. 



/*/2— 



3SZZ7S- 

of?* 



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1872, by 

GEORGE REBER, 
In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 



Poole & Maclauchlan, 

printers and bookbinders, 

205-213 East 12th St. 



ERRATA. 

On page 84, 4th line. It should read : for almost twenty 
centuries. 

On page 100, 12th line. It should read : Victor was Bishop 
of Rome in the beginning of the third century. 

On page 140, 19th line, the figures 55 should be 65. 

On page 170, 3d line. It should read : the omission of the 
first two chapters of Matthew. 

On page 235, 7th line. It should read: The Epistle of 
Jude is nothing but a bolt hurled at the head of Paul. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 

Death of Stephen. — Conversion of Paul. — His retirement to 

Arabia and return to Damascus and Jerusalem 9 

CHAPTER II. 

Paul and Barnabas start west to preach the Gospel. — The 
prevailing ideas on religion in Asia Minor. — Theology 
of Plato and Philo. — The effect produced by the preach- 
ing of Paul 17 

CHAPTER III. 

Therapeutae of Philo, and Essenes of Josephus. — An account 
of them. — Their disappearance from history, and what 
became of them 27 

CHAPTER IV. 
The origin of the Church 39 

CHAPTER V. 

Review of the past. — What follows in the future 56 

CHAPTER VI. 
How the Four Gospels originated 62 



vi Contents. 



CHAPTER VII. 

PAGE 

John, the son of Zebedee, never in Asia Minor. — John the 
Presbyter substituted. — The work of Irenseus and Euse- 
bius. — John the disciple has served to create an enigma 
in history. — John of Ephesus a myth 84 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Gnostics. — Irenseus makes war on them. — His mode of 
warfare. — The Apostolic succession and the object. 
■ — No church in Rome to the time of Adrian. — Peter 
never in Rome, nor Paul in Britain, Gaul, or Spain. 
— Forgeries of Irenaeus 107 

CHAPTER IX. 

The claim of Irenaeus, that Mark was the interpreter of 
Peter, and Luke the author of the third Gospel, con- 
sidered. — Luke and Mark both put to death with Paul 
in Rome 136 

CHAPTER X. 

Acts of the Apostles. — Schemes to exalt Peter at the ex- 
pense of Paul 147 

CHAPTER XL 

Matthew the author of the only genuine Gospel. — Rejected, 
because it did not contain the two first chapters of the 
present Greek version 168 

CHAPTER XII. 

The character of Irenseus, and probable time of his birth. — 
His partiality for traditions. — The claim of the Gnostics 
that Christ did not suffer, the origin of the fourth Gos- 
pel. — Irenaeus the writer 174 



Contents. vii 



CHAPTER XIII. 



Why Irenceus wrote the fourth Gospel in the name of John. 

He shows that the Gospels could not be less than four, 

and proves the doctrine of the incarnation by the Old 
Testament, and the Synoptics. — The author of the 
Epistles attributed to St. John 184 



CHAPTER XIV. 

Four distinct eras in Christianity from Paul to the Council 
of Nice. — The Epistles of Paul and the works of the 
Fathers changed to suit each era. — The dishonesty of 
the times 200 



CHAPTER XV. 

The Trinity, or fourth period of Christianity 218 

CHAPTER XVI. 
The Catholic Epistles 226 

CHAPTER XVII. 
No Christians in Rome from a.d. 66 to A.D. 117 238 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

The office of Bishop foreign to churches established by Paul, 
which were too poor and too few in number to support 
the Order. — Third chapter of the second Epistle to 
Timothy, and the one to Titus, forgeries. The writ- 
ings of the Fathers corrupted '. 244 



viii Contents. 

CHAPTER XIX. 

PAGE 

Linus never Bishop of Rome. — Clement, third Bishop, and 
his successors to the time of Anicetus, myths. — Chrono- 
logy of Eusebius exposed ; also that of Irenaeus 257] 

CHAPTER XX. 

The prophetic period. — The fourteenth verse of the seventh 

chapter of Isaiah explained 277] 

CHAPTER XXL 

Bethlehem the birthplace of Christ, as foretold by the pro- 
phets. — Cyrus the deliverer and ruler referred to by 
Mican the prophet. — The passage from the Lamenta- 
tions of Jeremiah quoted by Matthew, chap. ii. verse 18, 
refers to the Jews, and not to the massacre of the in- 
fants by Herod 288 

CHAPTER XXII. 
Christ and John the Baptist 299 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

The miracle of the Cloven Tongues. — Misapplication of a 

prophecy of Joel 308 

CHAPTER XXIV. 
Miracles 315 

CHAPTER XXV. 
Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews 328 

Appendix, , 339 



THERAPEUT.E 



CHAPTER I. 



Death of Stephen. — Conversion of Paul. — His retirement 
to Arabia and return to Damascus and Jerusalem. 

Let the reader imagine that he is in Jeru- 
salem, in Judea, about the year A.D. 34. 
There is unusual tumult in the vicinity of the 
Temple. A large crowd has gathered, and, 
stirred up by some strong provocation, is 
swayed like the billows in a storm. As we 
approach, we see a young man, who is trying 
to raise his voice above the din. There is 
something very striking in his looks. He is 
pale, but firm. His eyes gleam with an un- 
earthly light. As the crowd surges and threat- 
ens, he is calm. His thoughts and looks are 
directed more to Heaven than Earth. 

But in this crowd there is a young man of 



io Titer apeutce. 

an entirely different stamp. He is excited 
and angry. His eyes are red with rage, and 
he is seen moving among the crowd like an 
incendiary. The crisis came, and poor Stephen 
stood first on the list of Christian martyrs. 
This little bleared-eyed, angry man is not yet 
satisfied. Like the tiger that has tasted blood, 
he thirsts for more. He goes about Jerusalem 
like a madman. He fills the prisons with 
men and women who believed with Stephen. 
When he had done all the injury he could in 
Jerusalem, he asked and received permission to 
go to Damascus on a like mission. On his 
way, while he is breathing out threatenings and 
slaughter, he is struck down in his mad career. 
He saw in it the hand of God. Everything is 
changed in a moment. The fiery stream of 
burning lava, which rushed in one direction, 
now turned and ran with equal violence the 
other way. 

Philosophers may differ as to what befell Paul 
on his way to Damascus ; but as for himself, he 
never doubted. The Christ that he persecuted 
had spoken to him. His faith in what he saw 
in his vision he bore in his bosom, as he did 



Therapeutcz. 1 1 

his heart ; and in a life of toil, suffering, and 
sorrow, he clung to it to the end. 

We can hardly tell what were the feelings of 
Paul when he awoke to consciousness, because 
we cannot judge him as we would other men. 
He had raised his hand against the Son of God, 
and now, after a severe reproof, he was appoint- 
ed by him to be his special minister on earth. 
Paul did do just what we might suppose he 
would. He withdrew from the world, avoided 
Jerusalem, and, as he says, went into Arabia. 
There, alone, he meditated over the wonderful 
scenes through which he had passed. The 
more he thought, the more he believed he had 
talked with Christ, the Son of God, and the 
more he believed he had been selected to spread 
his Gospel throughout the earth. 

Once convinced that his vision was a reality, 
it was natural for him to make himself believe 
that these visions were repeated ; and through 
life, in all his acts and movements, he believed 
he was under the guidance of the same hand 
that smote him on the plains of Damascus. ; 
He goes from place to place as a Spirit from 
above directs him, and when he speaks he 



1 2 Therapeutcz. 

speaks not for himself, but for Him who sent 
him. Positive and overbearing by nature, he 
imagines himself to be the minister of the Son 
of God, and becomes intolerant, vain and exact- 
ing. All his ideas are crystallized — and will 
not bend or yield. 

As he was specially selected to preach, he 
believed in the doctrine of election. When he 
believed at all, he believed too much ; for it 
was his nature to overrun. He had witnessed 
Christ — others had not ; but, in the absence of 
proof, they must substitute faith. Works are 
nothing — faith everything. What he saw and 
believed, others must believe without seeing. 

His theology, from his natural temperament 
and the circumstances of his conversion, took 
an austere cast, which made the relation be- 
tween man and the Creator, that of guardian 
and ward. God himself, in the mind of Paul, 
is almost hideous. Some are given over to 
damnation before they are born ; while others 
are destined to be saved before they have had 
a chance to sin. 

It is difficult to tell whether the religious faith 
of Paul was fully fixed and determined before 



Therapeutce. 1 3 

he left his retreat in Arabia and returned to Da- 
mascus, or whether it was the growth of after 
experience and reflection. At some period of 
his life, and early too, he had settled in his 
mind the true relation which Christ bore to 
humanity. He had the best of reasons for his 
belief on that subject. He was in Jerusalem at 
a time when it was not impossible that Mary 
herself was living ; and if not, he saw Peter and 
was with him fifteen days, when he had every 
opportunity to inform himself about the early 
history of Christ. Will any one say that Paul, 
with a mind awake to everything that related to 
Christ, would not inquire and find out all that 
was known about Him who had spoken to him 
from the clouds, when he was in Jerusalem, 
and could question those who had been his 
companions on this earth ? If there was any- 
thing remarkable about his birth or death, Peter 
would have told it, and Paul would have re- 
peated it all along the shores of the Archipela- 
go, or wherever he went. 

But Paul, from first to last, preached that 
Christ was born of woman, and was of the seed 
of Abraham according to the flesh. Upon this 



14 Therapeutce. 

point he yielded nothing, and stood to it to 
the death. Paul was a man of learning, and 
wrote with great power. Longinus classed him 
among the great men of Greece. But in action 
and in deeds is where he went beyond all other 
men. Upon his shoulders, as he believed, was 
left the conversion of the world ; and he had a 
will and energy equal to the task. Believing 
that the Son of God stood at his side, as he 
performed the mission which had been assigned 
him, he neither feared nor trembled, but stood 
up with a bold front in the presence of Festus 
and King Agrippa. The unsparing cruelty of 
Nero had no terrors for him. 

After Paul had remained in Arabia long 
enough to collect his thoughts, and determine 
the course he should puisue, he went back to 
Damascus. At last he made up his mind to go 
to Jerusalem and see Peter. What must have 
been his feelings as he approached the holy 
city, and passed along the place where he as- 
sisted, three years before, in the death of 
Stephen ! Paul never forgave himself for the 
part he took in this murder 

Can we imagine with what feelings he ap- 



TherapeutcE. • 1 5 

proached Peter, or why he approached him at 
all ? If he felt sad and grieved at the part 
he took in the death of Stephen, he did not 
feel as if he met Peter as his superior, for he 
conceded nothing to any of the Apostles. 
There was no point upon which he was more 
sensitive. Paul did not visit Peter to be taught 
and instructed as to his duties, nor to learn 
from him the great truths of Christianity ; for 
he had learned all this from a higher source, and 
felt himself more able to give instruction than 
to receive it from others. Speaking of his doc- 
trines, he says : " For I neither received it of 
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ " {Galatians i. 12). Doubt- 
less he came to learn from Peter everything he 
knew of the personal history of Christ. He 
had many questions to ask about his habits — 
mode of life — his employments — about Mary, 
Joseph, and the whole family of Jesus. The 
smallest incident in his early life would be dear 
to Paul, and he would lock the remembrance of 
it in his bosom, as a sacred treasure. 

In this way fifteen days passed over, when 
Paul again left Jerusalem, and afterwards went 



1 6 Therapeutce. 

into Syria and Cilicia, where he was followed 
by divine visions and revelations. He spent the 
year A.D. 42 in Antioch, where he taught, as- 
sisted by Barnabas. Here he took up a collec- 
tion for the brethren of Judea, who were suffer- 
ing from the effects of a famine which took place 
during the reign of Claudius Caesar, and re- 
turned with it to Jerusalem. Having discharg- 
ed his trust, he went back to Antioch, accom- 
panied by Barnabas and Mark. All we know 
with certainty about Paul, from this time for- 
ward, we must gather, for the most part, from 
his Epistles to the churches ; for all other 
sources of information are suspicious and doubt- 
ful. An act, especially one of importance con- 
nected with his labors as an Apostle, attributed 
to him by others, and not spoken of at all by 
himself, should be excluded from the pages of 
authentic history. 



Thcrapeutce. 1 7 



CHAPTER II. 

Paul and Barnabas start west to preach the Gospel. — 
The prevailing ideas on religion in Asia Minor. 
— Theology of Plato and Philo. — The effect pro- 
duced by the preaching of Paul. 

Paul, in the year A.D. 45, with Barnabas 
and Mark as his companions, set his face west 
in the direction of Asia Minor. The people 
who inhabited the country from Antioch in 
Syria along the north coast of the Mediterra- 
nean and the ^Egean, or the Archipelago, to 
Thessalonica in Macedonia, were for the most 
part descendants of the early colonists from 
Greece. A large number of cities were scat- 
tered along the shores, which had been enriched 
by commerce, and were the seats of learning 
and luxury. The Greek of Asia Minor, in the 
latter part of the first century, was not the 
Greek of the time of Pericles and Epaminondas. 



1 8 Therapeiitce. 

His levity and cunning had outlived his cour- 
age, his love of country and stern endurance. 
The college at Alexandria was the source of all 
light and learning, and the doctrines of that 
celebrated school, like a subtle fluid, pervaded 
all classes of men. It was here that Plato took 
lessons which led him to explore the mysterious 
nature of the Deity, and expose to the eyes 
of mortals the nature of the divine persons who 
regulated the affairs of the universe. In his 
imagination he populated Heaven, and divided 
among the different deities the share of each in 
the government of the world. According to 
Plato there was one God who was superessen- 
tial, and in him was blended or united all that 
was powerful and good. This he called the 
One, or the first principle of things. Proculus, 
of the same school, says the One is the God 
of all gods, the Unity of the unities, the Holy 
among the holies. Plato compares him with 
the sun. For as the sun by his light not only 
confers the power of being seen on visible 
objects, but is likewise the cause of their gener- 
ation, nutriment, and increase, so the good of 
the One, through superessential light, imparts 



Therapeutcz. 19 

being and power. As a consequence, both 
Plato and Pythagoras conclude that the imme- 
diate issue of this ineffable Cause must be gods, 
and each must partake of the same nature and 
have a superessential existence. That " every- 
thing in nature which is the result of progres- 
sion exists in a mysterious unity and similitude 
with its first cause. They are superessential, 
and differ in no respect from the highest good. 
From the supereminent Cause, as from an 
exalted place of survey, we may contemplate 
the divine unities, that is, the gods, flowing 
in admirable and ineffable order, and at the 
same time abiding in profound union with each 
other, and with their Cause." 

The first procession, from the first One, or 
intelligible Cause, is the intelligible Triad, con- 
sisting of Being, Life, and Intellect, which are 
the three highest things after the first God. 
Plato, in his Parmenides, calls the Author of 
the Universe Intellect and Father, and repre- 
sents him commanding the junior gods to 
imitate the power which he employed in their 
generation. It follows, that that which gener- 
ated from the Father is offspring, Son or Logos, 



20 Therapeutcz. 

second in the Triad. The third power or 
principle in the Triad is Intellect, or Spirit of 
the Universe. Here we have the Father, the 
Logos, and the Soul of the Universe in a mys- 
terious union ; and as they all proceed from 
the One, are one in unity. The author of 
"Decline and Fall" thus defines the theology 
of Plato : "The vain hope of extricating him- 
self from these difficulties which must forever 
oppress the feeble powers of the human mind, 
might induce Plato to consider the divine na- 
ture under the threefold modification of the 
First Cause, the Reason or Logos and the Soul 
or Spirit of the Universe. His poetical imagi- 
nation sometimes fixed and animated these me- 
taphysical abstractions ; the three archial or 
original principles were represented in the Pla- 
tonic system as three gods, united with each 
other by a mysterious and ineffable generation ; 
and the Logos was particularly considered, 
under the more accessible character of the Son 
of an Eternal Father, and the Creator and Gov- 
ernor of the world." (Vol. I., page 43 8 -) 

Such is an outline of the theology of Plato, as 
we learn it from the " Explanatory translation " 



Therapeutce. 2 1 

of Taylor to the Cratylus and other works of 
the great light of Greece. The ideas of Plato, 
under the teachings of the Alexandrian school, 
underwent changes and modifications, but were 
the source of all subsequent systems of theology, 
and we can readily detect in each the genius 
of the Athenian. Through the invitation of the 
Ptolemies, large numbers of Jews settled in the 
new capital of Egypt, who carried with them the 
laws and institutions of Moses. It was not many 
years before the religious ideas of the descend- 
ants of the colonists were tinctured and in some 
degree moulded after the doctrines taught at 
the school of Alexandria. Under the lead of 
Philo a new school arose, which was formed 
from a union of " Mosaic faith and Grecian 
philosophy," in which the distinctive features of 
each are clearly preserved. 

Philo Judseus was an Alexandrian Jew, de- 
scended from a noble and sacerdotal family, and 
was distinguished in his day for his wisdom 
and eloquence. He was born before Christ, 
and survived him. He was the author of nu- 
merous works, and esteemed one of the most 
learned men of his day. A tumult arose in 



22 Therapeutce. 

Alexandria between the Jews and the Greeks, 
and out of each party three were chosen as 
embassadors to go to Rome and lay the case 
before Caligula, who was then emperor. Philo 
was chosen as one to represent his countrymen, 
and undertook to act as chief spokesman in the 
imperial presence. He was treated with inso- 
lence — ordered to be silent — and the emperor 
was so carried away by his passions that per- 
sonal violence seemed imminent. . The equa- 
nimity of the philosopher was not disturbed, and 
having discharged his duty, he quitted the palace 
filled with the contempt for the tyrant which 
has loaded his memory in all subsequent ages. 
(Josephus, Antiq. y lib. xviii. ch. 8, sec. I.) 

The system taught by Philo dispensed with 
the third person in the Godhead, which was com- 
posed of the Father and the Logos, a divine 
Duad, which did not exist in unity, like the 
trinity of Plato : but the Logos with him, like 
the Mediator of the Hebrews, was possessed of 
mediatorial powers, and was an intercessor in 
behalf of the fallen race of Adam. It is difficult 
to define the relation of the Logos of Philo with 
the Creator of the Universe, whether he is an 



Therapcutce. 23 

attribute which is made manifest in creative 
power, or whether he has a separate existence. 
He is the Son of God, and was with the Father 
before the world was created. His powers em- 
brace the mediatorial, and he stands between 
God and man, and represents the Father in his 
providences to our race. He is not an hypos- 
tasis, and yet he was begotten. 

Such are some of the ideas which prevailed 
in Asia Minor, and other countries along the 
shores of the Mediterranean, when Paul and 
Barnabas entered the country, bringing with 
them a new religion. It is as difficult to define 
what Paul's real belief was of the relations which 
Christ bore to the Creator, as it is to determine 
the real belief of Philo on the same subject. 
With Paul, Christ was the Son of God, but what 
was the exact relation he did not pretend to 
say. He says he is less than the angels — su- 
perior to Moses {Hebrews ii. and iii.) ; but he no- 
where says he is equal to God. Paul seems to 
have been less concerned about the nature of 
Christ, and the place occupied by him in the 
Godhead, than he was about his mediatorial 
powers. Through the fall of Adam, all men 



24 Therapetitce. 

were under condemnation, and it was the 
office of Christ, through his blood, to make 
atonement, and once more restore man to the 
favor of the Creator. With him Christ was not 
the Creator, like the Logos of Philo, but was 
the Saviour of the world. He did not exist 
from the beginning, but, like all flesh, from his 
natural birth. But still he was, as was the 
Logos of Philo, the Son of God. 

With such ideas, Paul made his way among 
the Greeks. The Jews were the first to make 
war upon him. But he stood his ground and 
gained more. The small churches which he es- 
tablished were like so many fortresses in an ene- 
my's country. Wherever he went he started 
discussion. The friction between the new and 
the old ideas produced heat : and with heat 
came light. 

But, after all, Paul's converts, for the most 
part, were from the less informed and the mid- 
dle classes. The learned turned away from him, 
because he had no tangible proof to satisfy 
them that what he preached was true. The 
story of his conversion was improbable, and 
could be ascribed to the effects of natural causes. 



Therapeutcz. 25 

The time for miracles had not yet come, and 
Paul did not claim anything from them.* 

Tacitus speaks of Christians as a race of men 
detested for their evil practices, and classes their 
doctrines among the pernicious things which 
flowed into Rome as into a common sewer. 
{Annals, lib. xv. sec 54.) Still the churches 
established by Paul grew slowly, but seemed to 
require the influence of his presence and per- 
sonal efforts to keep them alive. As long as 
the fight went on between Paul and the Jews, 
and unconverted Gentiles, his lofty courage and 
iron will were enough to hold him up. But he 
soon had troubles of a different kind. He found 
them in the churches themselves. It is not dif- 
ficult to tell what would be the effect of Paul's 
ideas when brought face to face with doctrines 
of the Alexandrian school. It was like the meet- 
ing of the acid and the alkali. The first sign of the 
effervescence appears at Corinth, and two hun- 
dred years passed before it ceased, if it ceased at 
all. From the time the quarrel commenced at Co- 



* Had it been true that an apron which, came in contact with 
Paul's person could cure diseases, all Asia would have been con- 
verted while he was making a few hundred believers. 

2 



26 Therapeutce. 

rinth, between the followers of Paul, until the time 
when the questions disappear altogether, mental 
phenomena are exhibited unlike any other in 
the history of man. Even the quarrels and dis- 
putes of the Realists and Nominalists of the 
thirteenth century bear no comparison. The 
contest between the different sects had all the 
earnestness of a struggle between gladiators. 
From being warm disputants, men became dis- 
honest. Books were forged entire, others were 
mutilated, and some suppressed and put out of 
sight. It was an age of downright dishonesty 
on all sides. But from these dark and discord- 
ant elements arose the true Church. 



Therapeutic. 27 



CHAPTER III. 

Therapeutae of Philo — and Essenes of Josephus. — An 
account of them. — Their disappearance from his- 
tory, and what became of them. 

In the beginning of the first century there 
existed a sect or society which exercised great 
influence over the fortune and affairs of the 
world ; but, before the second had elapsed, was 
insensibly lost in the commingling of creeds and 
sects which sprang up in the mean time. Like 
a billow on the sea, it rose high and spread far ; 
but at last disappears, or is lost in the great 
ocean. We refer to the Therapeutae of Philo 
and the Essenes of Josephus. Their origin is 
lost in the distant past ; nor is it proven who 
was the founder of the sect. Although the The- 
rapeutae were found in every part of the Roman 
empire, Alexandria was the centre of their ope- 
rations. Their learning and knowledge were 
derived from the schools of Alexandria ; and to 
the climate of Egypt, which, by some immuta- 



28 Therapeutce. 

ble law of nature, disposed men to embrace a 
gloomy asceticism, they are indebted for their 
morose and cruel discipline. From this society 
were furnished all the monks which populated 
the deserts of Africa before the Christian era 
began. 

The Essenes were one of the three leading 
sects among the Jews ; the Sadducees and Phari- 
sees forming the other two. Josephus, who fully 
describes them, in early life was a member, and 
for three years took up his abode in the desert, 
and suffered all the pains, and endured all the 
hardships of monastic life. They were confined 
to no locality, but were found in every city in 
Europe and Asia. When travelling from place 
to place, they were received and provided for 
by members of their sect without charge, so 
that when one of them made his appearance in 
a strange city, he found there one already ap- 
pointed for the special purpose of taking care of 
strangers and providing for their wants. They 
neither bought from nor sold to each other, but 
each took what his wants required, as if it were 
his own. 

" And as for their piety towards God," says 



TJi c rape tUce. 29 

Josephus, "it is very extraordinary ; for before 
sun-rising they speak not a word about profane 
matters, but put up certain prayers which they 
have received from their forefathers, as if they 
made a supplication for its rising. After this, 
every one of them is sent away by their curators, 
to exercise some of those arts wherein they are 
skilled, in which they labor with great diligence 
till the fifth hour, after which they assemble 
themselves together in one place, and when 
they have clothed themselves in white veils, 
they then bathe their bodies in cold water, and, 
after their purification is over, they every one 
meet together in an apartment of their own, 
into which it is not permitted to any of another 
sect to enter ; while they go after a pure manner 
into the dining-room, as into a certain holy tem- 
ple, and quietly sit themselves down ; upon 
which the baker lays their loaves in order ; the 
cook also brings a single plate of one sort of 
food and sets it before every one of them ; but 
a priest says grace before meat ; and it is un- 
lawful for any one to taste of the food before 
grace be said. The same priest, when he has 
dined, says grace again after meat ; and when 



30 Titer apeuta. 

they begin, and when they end, they praise 
God, as he that bestows their" food upon them ; 
after which they lay aside their [white] gar- 
ments, and betake themselves to their labors 
again until the evening ; then they return home 
to supper, after the same manner." (Josephus, 
Wars, lib. ii. chap. 8, sec. 5.) 

The time allowed for probation, before ad- 
mission to the fraternity, was three years, and in 
the meantime the temper and disposition of the 
neophyte were put to the severest test, and not 
until he had given ample proof of his sincerity 
or ability to submit to the laws and ordinances 
of the sect was he deemed fit for admission ; 
but before he is allowed to do so, he is required 
to swear, " that, in the first place, he will exer- 
cise piety towards God ; and then that he will 
observe justice towards men ; and that he will 
do no harm to any one, either of his own accord, 
or by the command of others ; that he will al- 
ways hate the wicked, and be assistant to the 
righteous ; that he will ever show fidelity to all 
men, and especially to those in authority, be- 
cause no one obtains the government without 
God's assistance ; and that if he be in authority, 



Therapcutce. 3 1 

he will at no time whatever abuse his authority, 
nor endeavor to outshine his subjects, either in 
his garments, or any other finery ; that he will 
be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to 
himself to reprove those that tell lies ; and that 
he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his 
soul from unlawful gains ; and that he will 
neither conceal anything from those of his own 
sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to 
others — no, not though any one should compel 
him so to do, at the hazard of his life. More- 
over, he swears to communicate their doctrines 
to no one any otherwise than as he received them 
himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and 
"will equally preserve their books belonging to 
their sect, and the names of the angels [or mes- 
sengers]. These are the oaths by which they se- 
cure their proselytes to themselves." (Jos., Wars, 
lib. ii. ch. 8, sec. 6.) 

The following is the account given by Philo 
of this sect, preserved in the pages of Euse- 
bius : — 

" ' This kind of men is everywhere scattered 
over the world, for the Greeks and barbarians 
should share in so permanent a benefit. They 



32 Therapeuice. 

abound, however, in Egypt, in each of its dis- 
tricts, and particularly Alexandria. But the 
principal men among them from every quarter 
emigrate to a place situated on a moderate 
elevation of land beyond the Lake Maria, very 
advantageously located both for safety and 
temperature of the air, as if it were the native 
country of the Therapeutae.'" 

( 'After describing what kind of habitations 
they have, he says of the churches : ' In every 
house there is a sacred apartment which they 
call the Semneion or Monasterium, where, 
retired from men, they perform the mysteries 
of a pious life. Hither they bring nothing 
with them, neither drink nor food, nor anything 
else requisite to the necessities of the body ; 
they only bring the law and the inspired decla- 
rations of the prophets, and hymns, and such 
things by which knowledge and piety may be 
augmented and perfected.' After other matters 
he adds : ' The whole time between the morning 
and the evening is a constant exercise ; for as they 
are engaged with the sacred Scriptures, they rea- 
son and comment upon them, explaining the phi- 
losophy of their country in an allegorical manner. 



Therapeutce. 33 

For they consider the verbal interpretation as 
signs indicative of a sacred sense communicated 
in obscure intimations. They have also com- 
mentaries of ancient men, who, as founders of 
the sect, have left many monuments of their 
doctrine in allegorical representations which 
they use as certain models, imitating the man- 
ner of the original institution.' 

" These facts appear to have been stated by a 
man who at least has paid attention to those 
that have expounded the sacred writings. But 
it is highly probable that the ancient commen- 
taries which he says they have are the very 
Gospels and writings of the Apostles, and 
probably some expositions of the ancient pro- 
phets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and many others of St. Paul's epistles. 
Afterwards again, concerning the new psalms 
which they composed, he thus writes : ' Thus 
they not only pass their time in meditation, but 
compose songs and hymns unto God, noting 
them of necessity with measure uncommonly 
serious through every variety of metres and 
tunes.' Many other things concerning these 

persons, he writes in the same book . . . 

2* 



34 Therapeutce. 

Why need we add to these an account of their meet 
ings, and the separate abodes of the men and 
the women in these meetings, and the exercises 
performed by them, which are still in vogue 
among us at the present day, and which, espe- 
cially at the festival of our Saviour's passion, we 
are accustomed to use in our fastings and 
watchings, and in the study of the divine word. 
All these the above-mentioned author has ac- 
curately described and stated in his writings, 
and they are the same customs that are observed 
by us alone at the present day, particularly the 
vigils of the great festival, and the exercises in 
them, and the hymns that are commonly recited 
among us. He states that whilst one sings 
gracefully with a certain measure, the others, 
listening in silence, join in singing the final 
clauses of the hymns ; also, that on the above- 
mentioned days they lie on straw spread on 
the ground, and to use his own words, ' They 
abstain altogether from wine, and taste no flesh. 
Water is their only drink, and the relish of their 
bread, salt and hyssop.' Besides this, he de- 
scribes the grades of dignity among those who 
administer the ecclesiastical services committed 



Therapcuta. 3 5 

to them, those of the Deacons and the Presiden- 
cies of the Episcopate as the highest. But, 
whosoever desires to have a more accurate 
knowledge of these things, may learn them from 
the history already cited ; but that Philo, when 
he wrote these statements, had in view the first 
heralds of the gospel, and the original practices 
handed down from the Apostles, must be obvi- 
ous to all." (Euseb. Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 17.) 

They had their churches, their Bishops 
(called Presidencies of the Episcopate), Dea- 
cons and monasteries. They used sacred wri- 
tings, which they read in their churches with 
comments, and which they believed were di- 
vinely inspired. Commentaries were written 
on these writings, as they are on the present 
Gospels. Their mode of worship was much 
the same as in our own day ; and they had 
missionaries all over Asia, and in many parts of 
Europe. The day observed by Christians after- 
wards as the festival of our Saviour's passion 
was observed by them as sacred, and which 
they passed in fasting, watching, and the study 
of the sacred writings. All this we are assured 
is true, by the authority of Josephus, Philo, 



36 Tkerapeutce. 

and Eusebius. So strong is the resemblance 
in doctrines, and form of church government, 
between these ancient Therapeutae, that Euse- 
bius, because he could not deny the similitude, 
undertook the task of proving that the Essenes 
were Christians, and that their sacred writings 
were the four Gospels. He says: "But it 
is highly probable that the ancient writings 
which he (Philo) says they have, are the very 
Gospels and writings of the Apostles, and prob- 
ably some expositions of the ancient prophets, 
such as are contained in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and many others of St. Paul's epis- 
tles." (Eus., Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 17.) 

Eusebius has not deceived himself — he only 
hoped to deceive others. If the Essenes were 
not Christians, then it is evident that much 
which is claimed as original in Christianity was 
copied from them. " Basnage has examined 
with the most critical accuracy the curious 
treatise of Philo, which describes the Thera- 
peutae. By proving that it was composed as 
early as the time of Augustus, he has demon- 
strated, in spite of Eusebius and a crowd of 
modern Catholics, that the Therapeutae were 



Therapeutce. $7 

neither Christians nor monks." {Decline and 
Fa//, Vol. I. page 283, chapter xv., note 
162.) 

" Much dispute has arisen among the learned 
concerning this sect. Some have imagined 
them to be Judaizing Gentiles ; but Philo sup- 
poses them to be Jews, by speaking of them as 
a branch of the sect of the Essenes, and espe- 
cially classes them among the followers of Moses. 
Others have maintained that the Therapeutae 
were an Alexandrian sect of Jewish converts 
to the Christian faith, who devoted themselves 
to monastic life. But this is impossible, for 
Philo, who wrote before Christianity appeared 
in Egypt, speaks of this as an established fact." 
(Buck's TJico/ogical Dictionary .) 

And now, what has become of the Thera- 
peutae ? — of their sacred writings ? Where are 
their Elders, their Deacons and the Presidency 
of the Episcopate, or Bishops ? All writers 
agree that they soon disappeared after the in- 
troduction of Christianity. " How long," con- 
tinues Buck, "this sect continued, is uncertain, 
but it is not improbable that after the appear- 
ance of Christianity in Egypt, it soon became 



38 Therapeutce. 

extinct." Gibbon, in speaking of the disap- 
pearance of this sect from history, says: "It 
still remains probable that they changed their 
names, preserved their manners, and adopted 
some new article of faith." (Vol. I. page 283, 
n. 162.) 

This sect did not mingle and lose itself in the 
huge mass of Pagans, for between the two 
there was no neutral ground on which they 
might meet and agree. The antagonism be- 
tween them had continued too long, and there 
was traditional hatred on both sides. Paul 
threw the doors of the church wide open, and, 
as we shall see, the Therapeutse soon entered, 
and by their numbers took possession, and 
barred them against the founder and all his 
followers. What did the Therapeutse do with 
their sacred writings, which, Eusebius claims, 
were nothing more than our present Gospels ? 
To suppose that they abandoned and destroyed 
them altogether is not possible, considering 
their antiquity, and the veneration in which 
they were held for generations. 



Therapeutce. 39 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH. 

It is a question of great interest in history, if 
nothing more, when and where it was that the 
Christian Church, in the form in which it has 
come down to us, had its origin. 

To be sure, there are many who are satisfied 
with an orthodox belief on the subject, because 
they have never questioned their sources of 
information. But the world has grown to that 
age when traditional dogmas, or whatever they 
may be called, must be subject to the test which 
advancing knowledge imposes. Tried by this 
test, what is true will appear brighter ; what is 
false will be thrown off; and man, relieved of a 
burden which only weighed him down, will 
move on to an improved and better life. Man 
is not doomed by the condition of his nature to 
be eternally tugging at the stone of Sisyphus — 
nor is it consistent with the laws of a wise and 



40 Thestapeutce. 

beneficent Creator that mankind, in order to be 
prosperous and happy, should be compelled to 
live under a perpetual delusion. Like the source 
of some river, often traced to a mountain rill or 
the oozing waters of a morass, so the begin- 
ning of the church or churches of our own day- 
is to be looked for in some obscure corner of 
history, covered by the debris of ages. 

Located on a narrow isthmus between the 
y£gean and Ionian seas stood Corinth, one of 
the principal cities of Greece. Situated where the 
commerce from the East and the West meet in 
transitu, it grew in opulence and wealth, and 
was distinguished for the arts, and for the lux- 
ury and licentiousness of its inhabitants. Here 
Venus had a temple, presided over by a thou- 
sand priestesses, whose attractions increased 
the numbers who came from all parts of Greece 
to assist in celebrating the Isthmian games. It 
was at this place Paul planted a church, between 
the years A.D. 51 and A.D. 53, and where 
he remained eighteen months, working as no 
one but himself could work to build up and 
strengthen it. 

Paul left Corinth for a time for other fields 



Therapeutce. 41 

of labor, because he belonged to no one place, 
but his mission embraced the world. The com- 
merce of Corinth attracted to the place people 
from every part of the empire, east and west, 
and with others a large number of Alexandrian 
Jews. Among them were many of the Thera- 
peutse, who brought with them into Greece 
the doctrines of Philo. 

During Paul's absence there came to Corinth 
Apollos of Alexandria. He was an eloquent 
man and learned in the Scriptures. It is a subject 
of regret that we do not know more of his his- 
tory than we find in the Acts, and in the Epis- 
tles of Paul. What were the doctrines he 
taught when he first appeared in Ephesus, where 
he spent some time before he went to Corinth, 
we cannot tell, but he was fervent in spirit, 
" and taught diligently the things of the Lord." 
He had heard of John the Baptist, for he was a 
historic character, and Josephus tells how he 
baptized multitudes in the waters of the Jordan ; 
but he seems to have known nothing about 
Christ or the doctrines he taught. He spoke 
in the synagogue, which proves that what he 
taught did not give offence to the Jews. In 



4 2 TherapeutcE. 

Ephesus he attracted the notice of Aquila and 
Priscilla, Jewish Christians, who had been ex- 
pelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius on 
account of some disturbance growing out of 
quarrels between Jews and Christians.* Under 
their instructions Apollos was made a convert 
to Christianity. 

The Jews, as has been shown, were divided 
into three sects — Pharisees, Sadducees, and the 
Essenes. Every Jew belonged to or connected 
himself with the one or the other. Those who 
went to Alexandria, in time took the name of 
Therapeutse, which, it is claimed, was the same 
as the Essenes. However this may be, Philo 
describes them as a Jewish sect. That Apol- 
los was one of them may be claimed with great 
reason. A Jew, born in Alexandria, he coulc 
scarcely escape being one. Raised under th , 
shadow of the college of Alexandria, of a fervent 
spirit and a man of thought, he could not fail to 
be impressed by the doctrines taught by that 
celebrated school. They were the prevailing 
and fashionable doctrines of the day. That he 

* See Appendix A. 



Therapeutce. 43 

brought with him to Ephesus the Logos idea 
of Philo is clearly proven by what took place 
after his arrival. It seems his conversion to the 
Christian faith under the instruction of Aquila 
and Priscilla was easy, which proves that the 
difference which separated them in the first place 
was not great. Like all Jews, he was looking 
for some kind of Saviour or Deliverer, and they 
convinced him that Christ was , the one. He 
now undertook to convince others. " For he 
mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, 
shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ." 
[Acts xviii. 28.) But the Alexandrian notions 
of the Logos or Son of God soon began to show 
out in his discourses and make trouble. Some 
began to cry, I am for Paul ; and others, I am 
for Apollos (1 Cor. iii. 4). 

Paul's ideas on some points did not suit the 
Alexandrian school. The birth of Christ from 
human parents, in the speculative minds of this 
people, stripped him of all mystery ; and with 
them, on subjects like this, where there is no 
mystery there is nothing real. There could 
be no other difference between the followers 
of Paul and Apollos, except as to the origin 



44 TherapetitcB. 

and nature of Christ, and his relations to the 
Creator ; and there was none. The strife grew 
to such dimensions that Paul is constrained to 
write an epistle to the church, in which we 
can see what was at the bottom of the trouble. 
In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul 
names four parties whose quarrels disturbed the 
peace of the Church : the Paul party, who main- 
tained the doctrines of Paul as to the human 
origin of Christ ; the party of Apollos, who, 
without doubt, taught the docrines of Philo ; 
the party of Cephas, which held to the doc- 
trines of circumcision ; and the Christ party. 
We infer that the last was composed of negative 
men, or those who occupied neutral ground — 
the fence men of our day. It could not have 
been of much importance, for we never hear of 
it again. 

It was neither the first, third, or fourth of 
these parties that called out the letter to the 
Corinthians. It was the wisdom of the Greek 
school and Apollos' " excellency of speech " 
that disturbed Paul, and continued to do so to 
the end of his life. But see with what force 
he opposes the wisdom of the Greeks, the reve- 



Therapetttcz. 45 

lations which came to him from God. This 
letter displays all the characteristics of Paul. 
" And my speech and my preaching was not 
with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in 
demonstration of the Spirit, and of power : that 
your faith should not stand in the wisdom of 
men, but in the power of God. But God hath 
revealed them unto us by His Spirit ; for the 
Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things 
of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of 
the world, but the Spirit which is of God ; that 
we might know the things that are freely given 
to us of God. Which things also we speak, 
not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, 
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing 
spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God: for' they are foolishness unto him : neithei 
can he know them, because they are spiritually 
discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all 
things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that 
he may instruct him? But we have the mind 
of Christ^ (1 Cor. ch. ii.) Here it is not Paul 
that denounces the wisdom of the Greek school, 
but it is God himself. Such is Paul. 



46 Therapeutce. 

It is not difficult to tell to which of the four 
parties at Corinth this epistle was addressed. 
That the difference between Paul and Apollos 
grew out of opposing opinions as to the nature 
of Christ, can admit of no doubt, which is ren- 
dered certain by the first, second, and third 
chapters of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. 
He says : "For other foundation can no man 
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 
That is, I have taught to you Christ as he is, 
and it is not for any other man to teach any- 
thing different. He declares that " according 
to the grace of God which is given unto me> as 
a wise master-builder, I have laid the founda- 
tion." "let every man take heed how 

he buildeth thereon" Here is a^ plain intima- 
tion that the Christ of Paul rested upon a diffe- 
rent foundation from that of Apollos — the one 
divine, the other human. " I have planted, 
Apollos watered." That is, I have planted 
the seed that will produce the true fruit, and 
it is for others only to cultivate and nourish 
what I have planted. 

He tells the Corinthians that they were born 
unto a knowledge of Christ through his gospel 



TherapeutcE. 47 

— that is, through his preaching ; and that if they 
had ten thousand instructors, of these there 
would not be many who, as spiritual fathers, 
could reveal to them the truth as he had. 
"Wherefore, I beseech you, be ye followers of 
me. For this cause have I sent unto you 
Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful 
in the Lord, who shall bring you into remem- 
brance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach 
everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. iv. 16, 
17.) What more conclusive evidence could be 
asked that Apollos was preaching doctrines dif- 
ferent from those of Paul as to the nature of 
Christ, than that the latter sent Timothy to 
counteract them ? and what other doctrines was 
the former teaching than those of the Alexan- 
drian school ? When Paul says all Asia had 
turned against him, it could only be on the 
questions which had sprung up between himself 
and Apollos. It could not be on account of 
circumcision, because on this point the Greeks 
would agree with Paul. It was not on account 
of different views on the subject of the resurrec- 
tion, because that was retained and became the 
foundation of the Christian faith. There was 



48 Therapeutcz. 

but a single point upon which those who pro- 
fessed Christianity at that day could turn upon 
Paul, and that is his " ways which be in Christ " 
as he taught them in all the churches. The 
quarrels of Paul with the Jews on the subject of 
circumcision died away in the church not long 
after his death, drowned out by the Greek and 
Therapeutae element ; but the cause of the strife 
between the followers of Paul and Apollos has 
continued down, in some form, even to our own 
times. 

It could not be long after his letter to the 
Corinthians that the doctrines preached by 
Apollos spread through all the churches of Asia 
Minor and became the established orthodox 
faith. Paul, in the Second Epistle to Timothy, 
says: "All Asia has turned against me." A 
mere change of name — Therapeutae to Christian 
— and the revolution was complete. It was 
made so rapidly that the world scarce noticed it. 
The Therapeutae, who were spread over Europe, 
Asia, and portions of Africa, disappeared so 
suddenly that it has always been a problem in 
history what became of them. But we can find 
here and there, in the history of the times, evi- 



Therapeutce. 49 

dences that the few friends of Paul did not give 
up the contest with their powerful foe without 
a struggle. These struggles come to the sur- 
face of history like the bubbles from the mouth 
of a drowning man. 

But little change in doctrines was required to 
justify the Therapeutse in taking upon them- 
selves the name of Christians. Christ, with 
Paul, was a Mediator, and so was the Logos of 
Philo. " What intelligent person," says the 
latter, " who views mankind engaged in unwor- 
thy and wicked pursuits, but must be grieved to 
the heart, and call upon that Saviour God, that 
these crimes may be exterminated, and that by 
a ransom and price of redemption being given 
for his soul, it may again obtain its freedom. It 
pleased God, therefore, to appoint his Logos to 
be a Mediator. To his Word, the chief and 
most ancient of all in heaven, the great Author 
of the world gave this especial gift: that he 
should stand as a medium (or intercessor) be- 
tween the Creator and the created ; and he is 
accordingly the Advocate of all mortals." {Ja- 
cob Bryant, quoted in Clarke's Commentaries on 
St. John's Gospel.) As the Therapeutae of 



50 Therapeutcz. 

Philo were the descendants of a Jewish colony 
who had settled in Egypt, and still retained in 
some degree their Mosaic ideas and belief in the 
Old Testament, under the light of the school of 
Alexandria, where the doctrines of Philo were 
taught, they readily adopted the Alexandrian 
ideas of the Logos. The' belief in some inter- 
mediate or mediatorial power between God and 
man was common to the Jews as well as most 
other people. Adam, by his disobedience, had 
broken the law, and if he or his descendants are 
ever to be restored to the favor of the Creator, 
it is to be done through the office of a Medi- 
ator. The notions of Philo on the nature of the 
Logos suited the Therapeutae much better than 
did those of Paul, and after a short struggle we 
will discover the Alexandrian dogmas to be the 
creed of the orthodox. Christ's appearance on 
earth, his death and resurrection, are what Paul 
preached, and what the Therapeutae, who were 
converted by him, believed. These features 
were retained in the church after the Philo ideas 
of the Logos had displaced the Christ of Paul. 
It was only Paul's doctrine of the descent of 
Jesus from Mary and Joseph after the flesh 



Thcrapeuta. 5 1 

that was thrown aside by them. The interven- 
tion of the Virgin, at a later period in the history 
of the church, was the means by which the 
Christ of Paul was made the Son of God in the 
sense of the Alexandrian school. 

The transition of the Therapeutae to Chris- 
tianity was easy. Little or no change was made 
in the form of the services in the church. Ac- 
cording to Eusebius, they sang hymns. They 
read sacred books and made comments on them 
as well after as before the change. Like the 
first Christian community, they held all their 
property in common. They said grace at table 
both before and after meals, according to Jose- 
phus, which they continued to do after they took 
the name of Christians. They made no change 
in their fasts and festivals, and retained the mon- 
asteries. The transfer of the form of the The- 
rapeutae church government to the new church 
was the work of time, and was not fully effected 
until the second century. The influence of 
Paul's name, with other causes, was too strong 
during the first to permit the change. 

A Bishop in a Christian church is the work of 
the second century. Like every other new fea- 



5 2 Therapeutce. 

ture in its history, we find the first Bishop at 
Alexandria. Gibbon says: "The extensive 
commerce of Alexandria, and its proximity to 
Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new re- 
ligion. It was at first embraced by great num- 
bers of the Therapeutse, or Essenians of the lake 
Mareotis, a Jewish sect which had abated much 
of its reverence for the Mosaic ceremonies. The 
austere life of the Essenians, their fasts and ex- 
communications, the community of goods, the 
love of celibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and 
the warmth though not the purity of their faith, 
already offered a very lively image of the primi- 
tive discipline. It was in the school of Alex- 
andria that the Christian theology appears to 
have assumed a regular and scientiflcal form ; 
and when Hadrian visited Egypt he found a 
church, composed of Jews and of Greeks, suffi- 
ciently important to attract the notice of that 
inquisitive prince." (Ch. xv. (162) (163), vol. I, 

P . 283.)* 

* After the author had written out his views as above, he met 
with the following passages from the writings of Michaelis, the 
great German critic, quoted in Taylor's Diegesis. Of the The- 
rapeutic, he says they are a " Jewish sect, which began to spread 



Therapeutcz. 53 

It is safe to say that it was the Therapeutae 
who caused the troubles in the churches in Paul's 
time and afterwards, because no other sect or 
society was so extended, and had the power to 
make the disturbance so universal. Paul could 
complain of no other, and it was this sect that 
turned all Asia against him. There is no way 
to account for the sudden and wonderful in- 
crease of Christians in a few years before 
Paul's death, without we can refer the cause to 
the sudden conversion of the Therapeutae to the 
new religion. When they are suddenly lost to 

itself at Ephesus, and to threaten great mischief to Christianity 
in the time (or indeed previous to the time) of St. Paul, on which 
account, in his epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and 
to Timothy, he declares himself openly against them." (Die- 
gesis, 58.) Again: "It is evident from the above-mentioned 
epistles of Paul, that, to the great mortification of the apostle, 
they insinuated themselves very early into the church." (60.) The 
writer does not wish to be understood that the disturbances cre- 
ated in the church were confined to Corinth, and that Apollos 
was the only one who taught during the life of Paul the doctrines 
of the Alexandrian school. Wherever Paul had founded a church, 
there the Therapeutae element was at work. Apollos, by his 
superior eloquence and learning, was distinguished from a host of 
agitators, and called forth the special notice of Paul. 



54 Therapeutce. 

sight, the small churches of Paul have grown 
great in numbers, and spread over Europe and 
Asia in an incredibly short space of time. 

Before going to press, the writer came into 
the possession of the works of Michaelis, where we 
find the following passage : "But even before 
Apollos had received the instructions of Aquila 
and Priscilla, he taught publicly in the syna- 
gogue at Ephesus concerning the Messiah. 
Hence it is not improbable that the Essenes in- 
troduced themselves into the church at Ephesus 
by means of Apollos, who came from Alexan- 
dria, in the neighborhood of which city, accord- 
ing to Philo, the Essenes were not only numer- 
ous but were held in high estimation." (Vol. 
iv. p. 85.) It would seem from this that Apol- 
los only continued to do at Corinth what he 
first began at Ephesus. 

No man of any age suffered so much abuse, 
nor was there ever one whose memory labored 
under such a weight of obloquy, as that of Paul 
during the latter part of the first, and nearly the 
whole of the second century, and that, too, 
from those who had been converts to the doc- 
trines taught in the school of Apollos. The 



Therapeutce. 55 

first half of the Acts was written, as will be 
shown, expressly to exalt Peter over him and 
degrade him from the rank of an Apostle. The 
Revelation ascribed to St. John is nothing but 
a bitter tirade of denunciation against Paul and 
his followers. He is called a liar, " the false 
prophet," who with the beast was cast alive into 
a lake of burning fire. He is the great red 
dragon who stood before the woman ready to 
devour the child Jesus as soon as he was born, 
and who warred with Michael and the angels. 
Paul is not only denounced, but Christ himself 
is made to declare his status in the Godhead. 
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto 
you these things in the churches." (xxii. 16.) 
What the things were to which the angel was 
to bear testimony, sufficiently appears in every 
portion of the book of Revelation. Why was 
Paul the subject of so much abuse ? There can 
be but one answer. It was because of the way 
in which he taught Christ in all the churches, 
which he had learned from the Apostles in his 
interviews with them at Jerusalem, and probably 
from Joseph and Mary themselves, for they oc- 
curred about the year A.D. 40. 



56 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER V. 

Review of the past. — What follows in the future. 

Let us assume a stand at the beginning of 
Adrian's reign, A.D. 117, and make a survey of 
the Christian world as it presents itself at that 
day. A half-century has passed since the death 
of Paul. Since then, Rome has been without a 
Christian population. Driven from the city 
through the cruel butcheries of the tyrant, they 
took refuge in the provinces, especially Asia 
Minor, where they remained until the reign of 
Adrian and his successor, the tolerant Antoni- 
nus Pius. In the mean time, the Therapeutan 
element of Christianity had been steadily on the 
increase, while that of Paul had correspondingly 
declined. The proclamation of Adrian, or rather 
his letter to Fundanus, a governor of one of the 
provinces, prohibiting the punishment of Chris- 
tians on account of their religion, was the first 
intimation from the capital of the empire that 



Therapeutcz. 57 

they could return in safety. From this time 
Christians began to return to Rome in a steady 
stream, so that within the next twenty years they 
had so increased in numbers that they once 
more take a place in history, and are found 
mixed up in the history of the imperial city. 

But at this time Christians, in their contest 
with the Pagans, found the evidence of Christi- 
anity, as it then stood, not sufficient to contend 
with the infidelity of the age. The old religion 
of Rome was hallowed by time, supported by 
the learned men of that day, and upheld by the 
power of the State. The Gospels had not yet 
appeared ; the world was without a miracle ; 
Mary, the bride of Heaven, afterwards the cen- 
tral figure in the Hierarchy of the orthodox, had 
no place in history. Peter had not been in 
Rome, or John in Asia. The personal influence 
of Paul and his immediate followers had kept 
alive the spirit of Christianity in Asia ; but now 
Paul is no more, and the influence of his name 
has nearly passed away. The proof that there 
ever were such persons as Christ and his dis- 
ciples had become faint. The dim light of tra- 
dition, and what Paul, and his companion Bar- 
3* 



58 Therapeutcz. 

nabas, said of him in their epistles, comprised 
about all the evidence at that day to sustain the 
claims of Christianity. But Paul himself had 
not seen Christ, except under such circumstan- 
ces as might excite suspicion of either delusion 
or fraud. He had seen Peter, and remained 
with him, in the first place fifteen days ; and 
afterwards went to Jerusalem, where he saw all of 
the disciples who were then living. What Paul 
learned from the disciples, with his vision near 
Damascus, was sufficient to convince him of the 
reality of Christ and the truth of the religion he 
taught. But the proof all lay within himself. 
The genuine epistles of Peter, as we will show, 
were so corrupted by the men of the second 
century, that we have no means of knowing how 
much of the original remains or how much has 
been added. The epistle of James, which is the 
only writing by an Apostle, or any one else, 
that has come down to us from the Apostolic 
age without some evidence of fraud and corrup- 
tion, only speaks of Christ as a just man, and 
makes no mention of the prodigies and wonders 
claimed to have taken place at the time of his 
birth and death ; nor does he take notice of the 



Titer apcutcc. 59 

miracles and wonderful things spoken of in the 
Gospels. The proof, whatever it may have 
been, that Christ ever existed, was too weak to 
overcome or even contend against the skepti- 
cism of the age. 

So far we have said nothing of the Hebrew 
Gospel of Matthew, because it was cast to one 
side, for the reason that it was a standing argu- 
ment against the Alexandrian ideas of the Lo- 
gos — and was regarded as of no authority in the 
church until it had been improved by impor- 
tant additions made afterwards, and passed into 
the present Greek version. With such proof as 
existed at the time we write of, Christianity 
could not hold its ground against the great 
pressure brought to bear it down — much less 
make headway against such powerful opposition. 
The time to supply new proof of the reality of 
Christ was favorable. All the scenes in his life 
lay within the boundaries of Galilee, Samaria, 
and Judea — the greater part in and about Jeru- 
salem. Since his death the Legions of Rome 
had been there, and left nothing standing except 
a few towers, reserved for military defence. 
The silence of death, for almost a half century, 



60 Therapeutce. 

had reigned in the streets of Jerusaleni. • The 
greater part of the Jewish people had been put 
to death by the sword, or carried away into 
captivity. All who lived during the time of 
Christ, by age and the calamities of war had 
gone to their graves. We shall soon see the 
Synoptics appear in intervals such as circum- 
stances demanded, each bearing the name of 
an Apostle, or the name of some one who wrote 
at their dictation. A little further down in the 
century we will find men engaged in laying the 
foundation of a church, whose claims to infalli- 
bility and supremacy are based on "apostolic 
succession." When we come to this period we 
will find all ecclesiastical history to consist of 
traditions, and a time in the world's life which 
is populated by Bishops and high-church dig- 
nitaries, who pass before us without speech or 
action, like shadows on a wall. We shall find 
Peter has been in Rome ; John at Ephesus ; 
Paul in Gaul, Spain, and Britain. We will find 
parties engaged in exalting Peter above all the 
other Apostles — and the same influence at work 
to put down Paul. Again we will see Paul re- 
stored to favor, but his writings defaced by for- 



TherapeiUcs. 6 1 

geries, to conform to the doctrines of the day. 
We shall also see Christians enter into quarrels 
among themselves, which continue through cen- 
turies. Books are forged, traditions manufac- 
tured, and the works of the Fathers shamefully 
altered and corrupted. Later in the century, 
brought out by a pressure which made it ne- 
cessary, the fourth Gospel will appear, and Chris- 
tianity pass from the Alexandrian Logos to the 
Incarnate God. By casting our eyes still further 
down the centuries, we will see Christianity and 
the philosophy of Plato strangely allied, which 
brings us to the era of the Trinity. Let us first 
inquire into the origin of the three first Gospels. 



62 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER VI. 

HOW THE FOUR GOSPELS ORIGINATED. 

The origin of the Gospels has proved a Ser- 
bonian bog, in which many writers who have 
attempted an explanation have floundered with- 
out finding solid ground. Scarce two writers 
agree. Why should there be any doubt in a 
matter of so much importance, where the evi- 
dence could so readily be obtained at the time 
they were written, and so safely guarded and 
preserved ? Truth, in a historic period like 
that in which it is claimed the Gospels were 
written, need not be left in the dark. The true 
difficulty has grown out of the fact, that writers 
who have undertaken to give the origin of the 
Gospels have looked, as men do in most other 
cases, to outside sources for information ; where- 
as the explanation of the origin is to be found 
within the Gospels themselves, and nowhere 
else. By looking for light where none is to be 



Therapeutce. 63 

found, writers on this subject have had their 
attention withdrawn from the direction where 
the truth is to be discovered. If we bear in 
mind that men eighteen hundred years ago 
were much like men of to-day, that the emotion 
or effect a given event or occurrence produces 
in the minds of men of our own time would be 
the same as upon those who lived in the first part 
of the second century, we have a compass, such 
as it is, to guide us through this Cimmerian 
darkness. What would excite ridicule, or ap- 
pear false, and improbable to intelligent minds 
of Our own times, would appear equally so to 
such minds as Pliny and Tacitus at their ages 
of the world. 

In imagination let us take a stand at the be- 
ginning of the second century, and make our- 
selves citizens of the Roman empire under the 
reign of Adrian. We can well imagine how the 
minds of thinking and intelligent people were 
affected on the first appearance of the present 
Greek version of Matthew's Gospel. It set forth 
some"t>f the most astounding events in the his- 
tory of the world, and which the world heard of 
for the first time. When Christ was put to 



64 Therapeutce. 

death, all the land, from the sixth to the ninth 
hour, was covered with darkness ; the veil of 
the temple was rent in twain from the top to the 
bottom ; the earth did quake, and the rocks 
were rent asunder ; the graves were opened, 
and many bodies of saints which slept arose 
and came out of their graves, and went into the 
holy city and appeared unto many. Suppose 
that some morning we should pick up our daily 
paper, and find under the telegraph head an an- 
nouncement of like events as having occurred in 
London or Paris. At first we might be fear- 
fully startled, but would soon feel satisfied that 
it was all a hoax, after the style of Professor 
Locke's story of the Moon. If the authors of 
the story expected to accomplish anything by 
such startling announcements, they failed by at- 
tempting too much. Whether the earth was 
covered with darkness, or was shaken by an 
earthquake, or the dead got out of their graves 
and went down into the city, were facts easily 
inquired into, in that age of the world. 

Matthew further states that a star went Before 
the wise men of the East, till it came and stood 
over where the young child was. How could a 



Therapeutcz. 65 

star a million of miles off lead any one on this 
earth, and how could it at that distance be in a 
position to indicate a spot on the earth where 
the child was ? He also states, that when Herod 
found he was mocked he was wroth, and sent 
forth and slew all the children that were in 
Bethlehem and all the coast thereof, from two 
years old and under. We can readily imagine 
the Pagans, who composed the learned and in- 
telligent men of their day, at work in exposing the 
story of Herod's cruelty, by showing that, con- 
sidering the extent of territory embraced in the 
order, and the population within it, the assumed 
destruction of life stamped the story false and 
ridiculous. A Governor of a Roman province 
who dared make such an order would be so 
speedily overtaken by the vengeance of the 
Roman people, that his head would fall from 
his body before the blood of his victims had time 
to dry. Archelaus, his son, was deposed for 
offences not to be spoken of when compared 
with this massacre of the infants. 

But that part of the first Gospel which re- 
related to the dream of Joseph and the concep- 
tion of Mary was what most excited the criticism 



66 Therapeutte. 

and ridicule of the people of that day. The 
whole and sole foundation of the new religion 
was a dream. The simplicity of Joseph, too, 
provoked a smile, if nothing more. The story 
at the sepulchre was overdrawn, and threw dis- 
credit over all. " And behold, there was a 
great earthquake : for the angel of the Lord 
descended from heaven, and came and rolled 
back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 
His countenance was like lightning, and his 
raiment white as snow." (Matt /ie w xxviii. 2, 3.) 
Such aerial bodies are not given to the employ- 
ments assigned to the angel in this case. Roll- 
ing stones, say the wise men, by spiritual es- 
sences is ridiculous and absurd. Besides, who 
knows anything of the great earthquake ? We 
find no account of it, nor is it even mentioner' 
anywhere else. 

So men reasoned eighteen hundred years ago 
— and so they would to-day. It is evident that 
the author of the first Gospel had overdone his 
part, and injured the cause he meant to advance. 
The blunders and mistakes of the first Gospel 
made it necessary that there should be a second. 
This gave rise to a second Gospel, not by the 



Therapcutce. 67 

same hand, but by some other, who felt the 
pressure that had been brought to bear on 
Matthew. 

As this second Gospel was written with a 
special purpose, we must expect a great resem- 
blance in it to the first, except where the former 
makes statements which were the occasion of 
so much criticism on the part of the philoso- 
phers ; and in such cases, the best course to pur- 
sue would be to say nothing. Naked contra- 
diction would not answer. Mark has not a word 
to say about the story of Joseph and the angel. 
He omits the earthquake at the crucifixion, and 
the resurrection of the dead, for these things 
were susceptible of disproof; but tells of the 
darkness, and the rent in the temple, because 
the former was comparative, and may have been 
a dark cloud in the heavens ; and as to the case 
of the temple, -no one could disprove the story, 
for it was destroyed. The story of the angel 
and stone is entirely omitted, but the stone is 
removed from the mouth of the sepulchre when 
the women appear, and a young man is found 
in the inside, who is presumed to have done it. 
Matthew says that Joseph of Arimathea deposit- 



68 Therapeutce. 

ed the body of Christ in the sepulchre, and then 
rolled a great stone to the door. Afterwards 
the priest and Pharisees caused the entrance to 
be made secure, for fear that the body would be 
stolen, and the disciples then claim that he had 
risen from the dead. If so, say the philoso- 
phers, the work was not so poorly done that one 
young man could roll the stone from the door, 
as stated by Mark. It would be beyond his 
strength. 

Luke removes the objection ; when the wo- 
men come to the sepulchre in the morning they 
found the stone removed, and the body of Christ 
was missing. There was no young man inside, 
but two men were found standing on the outside, 
who, no doubt, were competent to do the work. 
The story of the star which led the wise 
men, and the murder of the infants at Bethlehem, 
is also omitted. We are justified in saying that 
those who were engaged in getting up the first 
Gospel, or those who succeeded them, were 
driven to abandon some false and impossible 
and improbable things stated in that Gospel, by 
proof, in some cases, of their falsehood, and in 
others by the force of argument and ridicule. 



Therapeutcz. 69 

Matthew had related the story of Joseph and the 
angel, and that admitted of no change or modi- 
fication. Mark says nothing about it, but 
silence will not answer ; for the philosophers 
still claim that all depends upon a dream, and 
the dreams of Joseph are no better than the 
dreams of any other man. If the story could 
not be modified, it might be corroborated. So, 
when it came to Luke's turn to speak he adds 
the story of Zacharias, and the interview be- 
tween Mary and the angel Gabriel. All now 
occurs in daylight, and dreams which had been 
the subject of so much ridicule are dispensed 
with. 

When Zacharias went to the temple to burn 
incense, he found on the outside a great multi- 
tude of people. The crowd has no connection 
with the story, except as these people are want- 
ed for witness as to what happened in the sanc- 
tuary. While Zacharias was offering incense 
within, there appeared to him an angel standing 
on the right side of the altar. The position of 
the angel is defined with precision, that it might 
not be claimed that what appeared to him was 
a phantom. Zacharias saw him and was afraid. 



yo Therapeutcz. 

As further evidence that the angel was not some 
optical illusion, Gabriel spoke, and gave Zacha- 
rias such information about the future birth of 
a son to him that he was disposed to doubt the 
truth of it. As a punishment for his reasonable 
doubts, he is struck dumb. The interview con- 
tinued so long that the crowd on the outside 
began to be uneasy, and when Zacharias did 
come out he had lost the power of speech. 
This convinced the multitude (but how, is not 
stated) that he had seen a vision in the temple. 
After this, Gabriel made a visit to Mary in open 
day, and held a conversation, in which he an- 
nounced to her the birth of a son through the 
overshadowing influence of the Holy Ghost, 
who would reign over the house of Jacob for- 
ever. Then follows the scene between Mary 
and her cousin Elisabeth. 

In Luke's account of the announcement of 
the birth of Christ by divine agency, the story 
of Joseph is entirely omitted, and new witnesses 
are introduced. His story was well studied ; 
every precaution was taken to silence cavil and 
make such a case as would remove doubts. 
The blunders of Matthew were not to be repeat- 



Thcrapeutcz. ji 

ed. The birth of Christ and John, who was 
afterwards called the Baptist, are ingeniously 
associated in the announcement of the angel, to 
give color to what is said of them in the Gos- 
pels afterwards. 

What objections were made by the philoso- 
phers to the story of Luke at the time, we have 
no means of knowing ; but if any were made, 
there is no subsequent effort to improve it, and 
so it remains to this day. 

The question interests us to know when and 
from whom did Luke get his information. If he 
had it from any one who had the means of 
knowing what he tells us, it must have been 
from Paul, for we have no knowledge that he 
had any acquaintance, or relations of any kind, 
with either of the disciples. He was Paul's 
companion : we find him with Paul at Troas, 
A.D.50; thence he attended him to Jerusalem, 
continued with him during his troubles in Judea, 
and sailed in the same ship with him when he 
was sent a prisoner to Rome, where he stayed 
with him during his two years' confinement. He 
was with him during his second imprisonment, 
and, as we will show in the proper place, he died 



J 2 Therapeutcz. 

with Paul in Rome, and was one of the victims 
of Nero's reign. If Paul knew what Luke states 
as to the divine emanation of Christ, why does 
he not make some allusion to it in his numerous 
epistles ? — and how can we understand that he 
could, with such knowledge, deny this divine 
creation, and preach to the last that Christ was 
born according to natural law ? 

Luke, too, made mistakes, which John after- 
wards corrected in the fourth Gospel. 

We can best illustrate the claim that the three 
last Gospels were written in the order they ap- 
peared, as a necessity to meet the objections 
and cavils of the philosophers, by taking some 
leading subject which is mentioned by all. Take 
> the case of the resurrection. Matthew says : 
" And when they saw him, they worshipped 
him : but some doubted." (Matt, xxviii. 17.) 
To leave the question where Matthew leaves it 
would be fatal. In such a case there must be 
no doubt. Mark makes Christ appear three 
times under such circumstances as to render a 
- mistake next to impossible, and to silence the 
most obstinate skepticism. He first appears to 
Mary Magdalene, who was convinced that it 



TherapcutcE. j$ 

was Christ, because she went and told the dis- 
ciples that he had risen, and that she had seen 
him. They disbelieved, nor could they be con- 
vinced until he appeared to them. They in 
turn told it to the other disciples, who were also 
skeptical ; and, that they might be convinced, 
Christ also appeared to them as they sat at meat, 
when he upbraided them for their unbelief. 

This story is much improved in the hands of 
Mark, but, in the anxiety to make a clear case, 
it is overdone, as often happens when the object 
is to remedy or correct an oversight or mistake 
previously made. There was a large amount of 
skepticism to be overcome, but the proof offered 
was sufficient to do it, and remove all doubts 
from the minds of the disciples. Considering 
Christ had told the disciples he would rise, why 
did they doubt at all ? Owing to some strange 
oversight, neither Matthew nor Mark says in 
what way Christ made his appearance — whether 
it was in the body or only in the spirit. If in 
the latter, it would be fatal to the whole theory 
of the resurrection. We conclude from what 
followed, that the philosophers of that day, who 
would concede nothing to the claims of Christi- 
4 



74 Therapeutcz. 

anity, took advantage of this oversight, and de- 
nied the resurrection of Christ in the body. It 
was the business of Luke to put this disputed 
question in its true light, and silence the ob- 
jection. He says that when Christ appeared 
and spoke to the disciples they were afraid. 
" But they were terrified and affrighted, and 
supposed that they had seen a spirit." [Luke 
xxiv. 37.) Christ then showed the wounds in his 
hands and feet. " And they gave him a piece of 
a broiled 'fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took 
it, and did eat before them" {Luke xxiv. 42, 43.) 
Now who dare doubt ? Why some doubted, 
as Matthew says they did, is hard to explain. 
The account of Luke should have satisfied the 
philosophers that it was a body and not a spirit 
that appeared to the disciples. But we can be- 
lieve they were not, from what is afterwards 
said on this subject. The story of the fish and 
honeycomb was incredible and absurd. It was 
a fish-story. If true, why did Matthew and 
Mark fail to mention it ? 

Luke had overdone the matter, and instead 
of convincing the Pagans, he only excited their 
ridicule. 



Therapeutce. 75 

Now comes John's turn. He does not omit 
entirely the story of Christ eating fish, for that 
would not do, after there had been so much said 
about it. He might leave it to be inferred that 
Luke made a mistake, so he modifies the story 
and omits the ridiculous part of it. The scene 
is laid on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias. 
Under the direction of Christ, Peter drew his 
net to land full of fish. " Jesus saith unto them, 
Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst 
ask him, Who art thou ? knowing that it was 
the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, 
and givctli tJicm, andfisli likewise." {JoJin xxi. 
12, 13.) It does not appear from this account 
that Christ ate of the fish at all. He took the fish 
and gave to the disciples ; the inference is, that 
they were the ones that ate. In Luke the state- 
ment is reversed ; — the disciples gave the fish 
to Christ, and he ate. John has taken out of 
the story that which was absurd, but he leaves 
us to infer that Luke was near-sighted ox careless 
in his account of what took place. If you leave 
out of Luke's account the part that relates to 
the fish and honeycomb, he fails to prove what 
it really was which appeared to the disciples. 



J 6 TherapeutcB. 

Christ, he says, said, " Behold my hands and 
my feet, that it is I myself." (Ch. xxiv. 39.) 
" And while they yet believed not for joy, and 
wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any 
meat?" (Ch. xxiv. 41.) It seems from this 
that the disciples could not be convinced until 
Christ had actually eaten something. Now if 
you strike out the eating part, which John 
does, and which no doubt the ridicule cast upon 
it drove him to do, Luke leaves the question 
open just where he found it. It was the busi- 
ness of John to leave it clean, and put an end 
to all cavil. 

Jesus appeared to the disciples when they as- 
sembled at Jerusalem. " And when he had so 
said, he shewed unto them his hands and his 
side." {John xx. 20.) They were satisfied, 
and no doubts were expressed. But Thomas 
was not present, and when he was told that 
Jesus had appeared to the disciples, he refused 
to believe, nor would he, " Except I shall see in 
his hands the print of the nails, and put my 
finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my 
hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 
xx. 25.) Now if Thomas can be convinced with 



Therapeutce. yy 

all his doubts, it would be foolish after that to 
deny that Christ was not in the body when he 
appeared to his disciples. 

After eight days Christ again appears, with- 
out any object that we can discover but to con- 
vince Thomas. Then said he to Thomas, 
"Reach hither thy finger, and behold my 
hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it 
into my side ; and be not faithless, but be- 
lieving." {John xx. 27.) It is not stated whether 
he did as he was directed ; but he was con- 
vinced, and exclaimed, " My Lord and my 
God." 

What fault the Pagans found with this account 
we have not the means of knowing ; but if they 
still disbelieved, they were more skeptical than 
Thomas himself. We should be at a loss to 
understand why the writers of the three first 
Gospels entirely omitted the story of Thomas, 
if we were not aware that when John wrote the 
state of the public mind was such, that proof of 
the most unquestionable character was demand- 
ed that Christ had risen in the body. John 
selected a person who claimed he was hard to 
convince, and if the evidence was such as to 



J& Therapeuice. 

satisfy him, it ought to satisfy the balance of 
the world. 

John's services are again required to repair 
the blunders and oversights of the writers of the 
three first Gospels in relation to the body of 
Christ after the crucifixion. Matthew states 
that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went 
on the first day of the week to see the sepul- 
chre. No other purpose is expressed. Mark 
says that early in the morning of the first day 
of the week, Mary Magdalene and Mary the 
mother of James and Salome brought spices 
to anoint the body. According to Luke, after 
the women who had followed Christ from Gali- 
lee had seen the body deposited in the tomb, 
they returned and prepared spices and oint- 
ments, and rested the Sabbath day. The body 
was deposited in the tomb-some time on Friday, 
and remained until Sunday morning, on the first 
day of the Jewish week. Doubtless, in the cli- 
mate of Syria, the body in the mean time must 
have undergone such a change as to make it 
difficult to either embalm or even anoint it. 
The Pagans at that day could hardly fail to take 
advantage of this mistake or blunder. But John 



Therapeutce. Jg 

again comes to the rescue and sets the matter 
right. According to him, Joseph of Arimathea 
had permission to take the body, which he did, 
and carried it away. " And there came also 
Nicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus by 
night) and brought a mixture of myrrh and 
aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. Then 
took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in 
. linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of 
the Jews is to bury." {John xix. 39, 40.) 

John now fully silenced the cavils of the enemy 
and taken the proper steps to preserve the body 
until the morning of the third day. 

The subject might be further pursued, but 
enough has been said to furnish a key to the 
origin of the Gospels. Christians in their con- 
tests with the Pagans resemble the course of a 
retreating army, which falls back to take a 
stronger position. Each time the position is 
improved, until one at last is found which is 
impregnable. We can readily see how it is 
that the three first Gospels so closely resemble 
each other, the exact language for whole pas- 
sages being alike in all. Mark copies Matthew, 
and Luke uses the words of both. It is only 



8o Therapeutce. 

when the last undertakes to improve or modify 
something, written by those who wrote pre- 
viously, that the difference becomes obvious. 
That the Christians in the beginning of the sec- 
ond century had books of some kind before 
the three first Gospels appeared in the present 
shape, is beyond all dispute. The sacred writ- 
ings of the Therapeutae, as we have shown, 
were full of the most sound morality, and con- 
tained all the essential principles of Christianity. 
These writings were ancient — had been regarded 
as sacred for generations among them, and were 
so much like the present Gospels that Eusebius 
claimed them to be the same, and that the 
Therapeutse were Christians. No doubt the 
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was extant, and if 
it was rejected by the Christians of that day, 
because it did not contain the two first chapters 
of the Greek version, there was no reason why 
they should reject the Sermon on the Mount, 
and all the sublime and pure religion taught by 
Christ. The sacred writings of the Therapeutse 
— the Hebrew version of Matthew, the Epistle 
of James and the first of Peter furnished the prin- 
ciples and doctrines which now form the life of 



TherapeutcB. 8 1 

Christianity, and the great want of the day — that 
is, some proof of the actual existence of the 
person of Christ, by those who had seen him and 
were familiar with him before his death — was 
supplied in the three first Gospels, by the testi- 
mony of those wno claimed to be his disciples, 
or by those who, it is said, wrote at their dic- 
tation. 

In what quarter of the globe were the Synop- 
tics written, and by whom ? All that can be 
said on this subject with certainty is, that the 
Greek version of Matthew, the source of all, 
was not written in Judea, or by one who knew 
anything of the geography of the country, or 
the history of the Jews. He was ignorant of 
both. What excuse was there but ignorance 
for making the order for the massacre of the 
infants to include Bethlehem, and all the coast 
thereof, which would take in at least the one- 
half of all Judea, and involve in one common 
slaughter, according to the calculations of learn- 
ed men, several thousand innocent children ? 
The Greek writer of Matthew evidently believed 
that Bethlehem was an insignificant hamlet, 
situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, 



82 Therapeutce. 

whereas it is as far in the interior as Jerusalem, 
and not far from the centre of Judea. The 
writer's ignorance of Jewish history will appear 
still more conspicuous, when we speak of the 
application which he makes of prophecy to the 
person of Jesus. Whoever the writer may have 
been, it is evident that he received his education 
at the college at Alexandria, where Medicine 
and Divinity were taught, and regarded as in- 
separable. From the union of the two, recovery 
from diseases was ascribed to supernatural 
powers. A fever was a demon, which was not 
to be expelled by virtue of any material remedy, 
but by incantations, spells, and magic. It was 
by such power Christ cleansed the leper — healed 
the centurion's servant — touched the hand of 
Peter's wife's mother and drove away the fever 
— expelled the devils from, two men into swine, 
and performed many other cures. The whole 
of the first Gospel has an Alexandrian look not 
easily to be mistaken — if we except the miracle 
of the loaves and fishes — walk of Christ on the 
water, and other wonders of a like nature, 
which is the work of some one later in the cen- 
tury. The deserts in the neighborhood of 



Therapeutce. 83 

Alexandria abounded with monasteries from 
the earliest accounts of the Therapeutae to the 
conquest of Egypt by the Mahometan power, 
which were filled with monks who were cele- 
brated for their piety, their miracles, their 
power to expel devils and heal diseases. The 
pages of Sozomen and Socrates abound with 
the names of monks who cured the palsy, ex- 
pelled demons, and cured the sick. (Sozomen, 
Ecc. Hist., lib. vi., ch. 28.) 



84 Therapeutcz. 



CHAPTER VII. 

John the son of Zebedee never in Asia Minor. — John the 
Presbyter substituted. — The work of Irenaeus and 
Eusebius. — John the disciple has served to create an 
enigma in history. — John of Ephesus a myth. 

Was John the son of Zebedee ever in Asia ? 
To ask a question which implies a doubt on a 
subject on .which the world has been agreed for. 
almost two centuries, will probably startle many 
even in this age of inquiry and progress. It may 
be a question, whether he who makes a discov- 
ery in science or the arts which facilitates the 
advance of mankind, or he who contributes 
by his labors to remove a delusion which has 
stood in the way of progress, is most entitled to 
the gratitude of his fellow-men. A falsehood, 
as long as it stands unquestioned, may and does 
receive the respect which is due to the truth ; 
but there is a time when, no matter how hoary 
with age, it must pass away and give place to 
the latter. 



Therapeiitcz. 85 

John the son of Zebcdee the fisherman, upon 
careful inquiry, can never be successfully con- 
founded with him of Ephesus. His character, as 
developed in the Synoptics, is composed of nega- 
tive qualities. We find him in Jerusalem when 
he had got to be fifty years old, without any evi- 
dence, up to that time, that he had been out of 
sight of the walls of the city, and no proof that 
he said or did anything worthy of notice. His 
name is mentioned in connection with some of 
the great scenes in the life of Christ, but he takes 
no part, and, like the supernumeraries on the 
stage, his presence is only needed to fill up a re- 
quired number. To be sure, Paul speaks of him 
in connection with James and Peter as pillars of 
the church — which has no significance, as the 
nine other disciples were all moderate men, and 
the church at the time few in number and easily 
managed. John of the Synoptics is not only 
lymphatic and of negative qualities, but, from his 
condition in life and pursuits, must have had but 
little learning of any kind. John of the Greeks 
is a man of learning, and a scholar. He was 
master of the Greek, and was familiar with the 
abstruse, and subtle philosophy of that specula- 



&6 Therapeutce. 

tive people. He was at home in all the different 
and various doctrines of the Gnostics, and proved 
himself the most able man of the age in his con- 
tests with those numerous sects which embraced 
the' most learned men of the second century. 
In fine, this John of Galilee, whose name is sel- 
dom mentioned, or if so, not for anything he 
said or did, who lives to be more than fifty with- 
out the least notice being taken of him, or allu- 
sion made — this phlegmatic John, after, he has 
passed the meridian of life, and his powers are 
on the decline, has all at once become a teacher, 
and the great light of Grecian theology, and 
wields a pen with the fire and spirit of Demos- 
thenes ! A change and complete transformation 
like this is nowhere else to be found in the his- 
tory of the world. The truth is, the John of 
Galilee is not the John of Ephesus. The latter 
is a phantom of some Greek's brain, which has 
served to mislead men for ages. 

If John the disciple had ever passed out of Sy- 
ria into Asia Minor, so important a fact would 
find a place in some authentic history ; and from 
the time he put his foot in the country, his mean- 
derings, like those of Paul, would be well known 



Therapeutce. Sy 

and preserved. We leave him in Jerusalem in 
A.D. 50, and the next time we hear of him he 
is in Ephesus. When he left Judea, and when 
he arrived in Asia Minor, no one pretends to 
know. From the year forty- eight, and perhaps 
much sooner, to the spring of sixty-five, Paul 
spent nine-tenths of his time travelling up and 
down the Archipelago, establishing and visiting 
the churches. He made the circuit three times, 
and it was his uniform practice, in closing his 
epistles to the different churches, to mention 
those of the brethren who were with him, even 
if they were not of much importance ; and yet 
in none of them does he mention the name of 
John. Considering that John was an Apostle, 
this silence of Paul can be accounted for only by 
the fact that he did not hear of or see him in 
Asia Minor, and was in Ephesus as late as the 
year sixty-four, and still later, sixty-five, and up 
to that time John had not been there, for Paul 
makes no mention of him. 

What historical proof is there that is wortt^ 
of credit, that John was ever in Asia Minor ? 
The whole story rests on the shoulders of Ire- 
nseus. Here is what he says : " Then, again, 



,88 Therapeittce. 

the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and 
having John remaining among them permanent- 
ly until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of 
the traditions." (Book III. sec. 3.) Irenaeus cites 
no authority, and we have a right, in a matter 
of so much importance, to demand of him 
some evidence that what he states is true. In 
this absence of any reference to written testimony 
we have a right to infer that there was none, 
and that there was no ground for the assertion 
but tradition. This Irenaeus is forced to admit. 
The book on heresies was written, as we shall 
show, about A.D. 181. According to authen- 
tic history, Paul was in Ephesus in sixty-five, 
the last time. If the statement of Irenaeus is 
founded on tradition, and there is no other, 
then the tradition that Paul left John in Ephe- 
sus is one hundred and sixteen years old. We 
will see what a tradition so old, handed down 
to future ages, is worth, coming from Irenaeus. 
A tradition over one hundred years old, when 
first inserted into the pages of history by one of 
the most dishonest historians of any age, is the 
authority we have in our day for believing a 
most important fact in the history of the Chris- 



TherapeutcB. 89 

tian church. The caption to the section from 
which the above passage was taken will explain 
the reason why Irenaeus undertook to misrepre- 
sent the truth of history: " A refutation of 
the heretics, from the fact that, in the various 
churches, a perpetual succession of Bishops was 
kept up." He was engaged in furnishing an 
apostle to the churches in Asia Minor and some 
parts of Greece, for an "apostolic succession." 
We will find him engaged in doing a great deal 
of this kind of business before we are done with 
him. The proof that John was not in Ephesus 
is conclusive. The language of Irenaeus im- 
plies that Paul placed John in charge of the 
church when he left for Rome for he says John 
remained. This is not so. When Paul left 
Ephesus, in the year A. D. 64 or 65, he left Tim- 
othy there in charge of the church, and he re- 
mained until Paul got into trouble in Rome, in 
the fall of A. D. 65, when the latter sent for him. 
Would Paul leave the church in the charge of 
Timothy when one of the Apostles was there, 
especially as he was so young that some ob- 
jected to him on account of his age ? In writing 
to Timothy to meet him in Rome, would Paul 



90 Therapeutce. 

fail to make some mention of the Apostle, if he 
had been in Ephesus when he left ? — Not one 
word to an Apostle who would naturally take 
charge of the church, in the absence of himself 
and Timothy ? 

It is clear, then, that John had not been in 
Ephesus up to the fall or summer of A. D. 65, 
when Timothy left to go to Rome ; and the 
question is, was he there after this ? and if so, 
when 1 Polycarp presided over the church at 
Smyrna, which was not far from Ephesus, and 
between the two points there was constant inter- 
course by land and water ; and if John had suc- 
ceeded Timothy at the latter place, would not 
he, Polycarp, take some notice of so important 
a fact ? He speaks of Paul in his letter to the 
Philippians, and why not mention John, who 
was one of the twelve Apostles ? Polycarp 
lived to the end of the century, and it is claimed 
John also lived to about that time, and as they 
both lived so long in such close proximity, how 
natural it would be that the intercourse between 
them should be most intimate, and that the for- 
mer should mention those relations with an 
Apostle in writing to the churches he addressed. 



Thcrapeutcz. 9 1 

Irenaeus felt the force of this, and undertakes 
to show that Polycarp was the hearer and disci- 
ple of John. He says : " These things are at- 
tested by Papias, who was John's hearer and 
the associate of Polycarp, an ancient writer, who 
mentions them in the fourth book of his works." 
(Quoted in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii., chap. 
39.) It is meant that it should be understood 
from this passage that both Papias and Polycarp 
had Seen and heard John the Apostle. Now 
Papias never conversed with John, the son of 
Zebedee the fisherman, and he says so, in a 
fragment preserved in the writings of Eusebius. 
After quoting the passage just cited from Ire- 
naeus, Eusebius says : " But Papias himself, in 
the preface to his discourses, by no means as- 
serts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of 
the holy Apostles, but informs us that he re- 
ceived the doctrines of faith from their intimate 
friends, which he states in the following words : 
1 But I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpre- 
tations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have 
at any time accurately ascertained and treasured 
up in my memory, as I have received it from 
the elders, and have recorded it in order to give 



92 Therapeutce. 

additional confirmation to the truth by my tes- 
timony. For I never, like many, delighted to 
hear those that tell many things, but those that 
teach the truth ; neither those that record foreign 
precepts, but those that are given from the Lord 
to our faith, and that came from the truth itself. 
But if I met with any one who had been a fol- 
lower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point 
to inquire what were the declarations of the 
elders, — what was said by Andrew, Peter-, or 
Philip ; what by Thomas, James, John, Mat- 
thew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord ; 
what was said by Aristion, and the Presbyter 
John, disciples of the Lord ; for I do not think 
that I derived so much benefit from books as 
from the living voice of those that are still sur- 
viving.' And the same Papias of whom we now 
speak professes to have received the declaratiom- 
of the Apostles from those that were in company 
with them, and says also that he was a hearer of 
Aristion and the Presbyter John. For, as he 
has often mentioned them by name, he also 
gives their statements in his own works." (Eu- 
sebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 39.) 

He says he never conversed with John, but 



TJicrapcutcz. 93 

with the elders, and that he was a hearer of 
Presbyter John, and so zvas Poly car p. When 
Irenaeus says that Papias conversed with John, 
without telling which John, he knew that no one 
would be thought of but the disciple ; and such 
would have been the case, had not Eusebius 
preserved this fragment from the writings of Pa- 
pias, Polycarp and Papias both conversed with 
the same John, who was John the Presbyter. 
In another place Irenaeus says : " But Polycarp 
also was only instructed by this Apostle, and 
had conversed with many who had seen Christ." 
(Book iii. chap. 3, sec. 3.) This is a palpable 
falsehood, and so appears from the passage just 
cited. He cites no authority, but lets facts of 
so much importance in history depend on his 
simple word. If what is stated be true, why 
does not Polycarp himself say something about 
the sources from which he derived his doctrines ? 
Nothing would give so great weight to his 
preaching as that he derived what he taught 
from those who had listened to Christ and his 
Apostles. Why speak of Paul, and what he 
taught, and not of Jesus and his disciples, and 
what they taught ? 



94 Therapeutce. 

The world is indebted to Irenaeus for the story 
of what took place between John and Cerinthus 
at the bath-house in Ephesus. Speaking of Po- 
ly carp, and how in all respects he was superior 
to Valentinianus and Marcion, he says : " There 
are also those who heard from him (Polycarp) 
that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to 
bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus 
within, rushed out of the bath-house without 
bathing, exclaiming, ' Let us fly, lest even the 
bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus is with- 
in.'" (Book iii. chap. 3.) 

Now it has been shown that John the disciple 
of the Lord never saw Polycarp, and if anything 
of the kind ever did take place, it was between 
Polycarp and John the Presbyter. The latter 
is a historic character, spoken of by Polycarp, 
who lived about this time, and was a Presbyter 
in the church ; and it is evident that Irenaeus 
seeks to confound the Apostle with him. It is 
for this reason he describes him in the above 
passage as " the disciple of the Lord," for 
which there was no reason, unless he meant to 
deceive. We have proved that he tried it once, 
and when the first falsehood is uttered it is easy 



Thcrapcutcz. 95 

to fabricate a second. This is the first blow that 
was" directed by Irenaeus against Cerinthus, a 
leader among the Gnostics ; but it is only initia- 
tory to still heavier ones which are to follow. 

Marcion was a distinguished character among 
the Gnostics, and he too must receive some 
damaging blows at the hands of Polycarp, the 
disciple of John. And Polycarp himself replied 
to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and 
said, " Dost thou know me?" — " I do know 
thee — the first-born of Satan." — " Such," con- 
tinues the writer, "was the horror which the 
Apostles and the disciples had against holding 
even a verbal communication with any of the 
corrupters of the truth." (Book iii. chap. 3.) 

The Apostle in this case was John the Pres- 
byter, if any one, and the disciple Polycarp the 
martyr, who had, in fact, never seen any of the 
Apostles. It is to be noted that no authority is 
given by Irenaeus for these stories, though they 
are introduced as some things which somebody 
had said. Such is history. 

The value of tradition from the authority of 
Irenaeus may be judged of by the following 
statement he makes, evidently intended to 



q6 Therapeutce. 

strengthen the assertion he made about the pres- 
ence of St. John in Asia Minor. In all cases 
where he wants it to appear that the Apostle 
was there, he connects the principal subject with 
other statements in a way as if the main fact 
w T as incidentally mentioned. " Now Jesus was, 
as it were, beginning to be thirty years old 
when he came to receive baptism, and accord- 
ing to those men he preached only one year, 
reckoning from his baptism. On completing his 
thirtieth year he suffered, being still a young 
man, and who had by no means attained to ad- 
vanced age. Now, that the first stage of early 
life embraces thirty years, and that extends on- 
wards to the fortieth year, every one will admit ; 
but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man be- 
gins to decline towards old age, which our Lord 
possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of 
teacher, even as the gospel and all the elders 
testify." " Those who were conversant in Asia 
with John, the disciple of the Lord (affirming) 
that John gave to them that information. And 
he remained among them up to the time of Tra- 
jan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only 
John, but the other Apostles, and heard the 



Therapeutce. 97 

same account from them, and bear testimony as 
to the validity of the statement. Which, then, 
should we rather believe? — whether such as 
these, or Ptolemseus, who never saw the Apos- 
tles, and who never in his dreams attained to 
the slightest trace of an Apostle ? " (Book ii. 
chap. 22, sec. 5.) 

It seems that Irenseus had got into a dispute 
with Ptolemseus, and attempts to silence him, as 
he does all opponents, by the authority of the 
disciples, and especially of John, who is the only 
one he names. John, too, was in Asia at the 
time. It is not said where the other Apostles 
were. Ptolemaeus claimed, as appears in the first 
part of the same section, " that Christ preached 
for one year only, and then suffered in the 
twelfth month." The argument with Ptole- 
mseus was, that Christ was too young, and 
preached too short a time, to be regarded as a 
teacher of much authority ; and in this way, as 
Irenaeus says, " destroying his whole work, and 
robbing him of that age which is both necessary 
and more honorable than any other ; that more 
advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a 
teacher, he excelled all others." The objection 



98 Therapeutce. 

is put down in a summary way, claiming that 
the time of Christ's preaching extended over a 
period of ten years. This is what the Apostles 
stated, and what John said while he was in 
Asia, and who remained there to the time of the 
death of Trajan. 

Now, the proof taken from evangelical his- 
tory, and all other sources, shows that the min- 
istry of Christ extended over little more than 
three years. Did John, while he was in Asia, 
and the other Apostles, no matter where, give 
rise to such absurd and false traditions ? If 
John was in Ephesus at the time Paul went to 
Rome, in the year A. D. 65, and remained to the 
time of Trajan, as stated by Irenseus, he was in 
Asia thirty-five years. During this time his 
history must have been so interwoven with the 
affairs of the church, holding the rank of an 
Apostle, that nothing could be more easy than 
to prove his presence in the country. There is 
no difficulty in following the footsteps of Paul 
for each year after he set out to preach the gos- 
pel, whether in Europe or Asia ; and so with 
any real character who has been conspicuous for 
his talents, or from the position he held in his 



Thcrapcutce. 99 

day. But neither Irenseus nor Eusebius have 
been able to furnish the world with the least 
evidence of a substantial character of the pre- 
sence of John in Asia, although they have un- 
dertaken it, and exhausted their ingenuity in 
trying to do so. If no better proof can be given 
of the presence of John in Asia, after a residence 
of thirty-five years, than a grave, which may as 
well be claimed to be that of Hannibal as that of 
John, the world will be satisfied he never was 
there. Eusebius has displayed his characteristic 
ingenuity, and shown his usual disregard for truth 
in an effort to prove that the grave of John was in 
Ephesus, and that it was identified as late as the 
latter part of the second or beginning of the 
third century. He travels out of his way to do 
it — manifests from the way he does it that he is 
engaged in a fraud, and, between the fear of de- 
tection and anxiety for success, he makes poor 
work of it. He causes Polycrates, who was 
Bishop of Ephesus, to write a letter to Victor, 
Bishop of Rome, with the apparent purpose of 
informing him that some mighty luminaries had 
fallen asleep in Asia, but, in fact, to give an op- 
portunity to make mention of the grave of John 



ioo Therapeutcz. 

as being there in Ephesus. Who these lumi- 
naries were who had fallen asleep, he does not 
name ; but dismisses this part of the subject and 
proceeds to say : " Moreover, John, that rested 
on the bosom of our Lord, he also rests at 
Ephesus." Some other matters are introduced 
into the letter, which related to the burial of 
Philip and his two daughters at Hierapolis ; but 
this was only intended to conceal the real pur- 
pose and design of the writer. 

Victor was Bishop of Rome in the beginning 
of the second century, after John, if we admit he 
was in Asia, had been dead one hundred years. 
In writing to Victor about persons who had 
lately died, and without saying who they were, 
why should Polycrates make mention of the 
grave of John as located in Ephesus, which, if 
true, would have been as well known to all 
Asia as the tomb of Washington is known to 
the enlightened world to be at Mount Vernon ? 

That intelligent men of the second and third 
centuries denied and disproved the presence of 
John in Asia, is rendered certain by the strug- 
gles and desperate efforts of their adversaries to 
establish the affirmative. The indications are, 



Titer ap eutcs. 101 

that the philosophers proved that the person 
whom the Christians claimed to be the Apostle 
John was some other John ; in all probability, 
John the Presbyter. Upon this point the proof 
seems to have been so conclusive that the Chris- 
tians were driven to the necessity of proving that 
there were two Johns — one besides the presbyter. 
Eusebius takes this task upon himself. We quote 
from the above letter of Polycrates to Victor : 
" For in Asia also mighty luminaries have fall- 
en asleep, which will rise again at the last day at 
the appearance of the Lord, when he shall come 
with glory from heaven, and shall gather again all 
the saints. Philip, one of the twelve Apostles, 
sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin 
daughters. Another of his daughters, who lived 
in the Holy Spirit, rests at Ephesus. More- 
over, John, that rested on the bosom of the 
Lord, who was a priest that bore the sacerdotal 
plate, and martyr, and teacher, he also rests at 
Ephesus." (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. ch. 
31.) Owing either to a bad translation, or de- 
sign on the part of the writer, two distinct char- 
acters are so run together in the same sentence, 
that we would suppose. them to be one person 



102 Therapeuttz. 

if we did not know that the person who leaned 
on the bosom of the Lord could not be the one 
who bore the sacerdotal plate, and was a mar- 
tyr. 

It would seem from this effort to make it ap^ 
pear that there were two Johns buried at Ephe- 
sus, that the philosophers proved that the John 
who bore the sacerdotal plate was the one the 
Christians were attempting to impose on the 
world as the real John, and that the proof was 
such that they had to yield the point, and claim 
that there were two graves — one the martyr's, 
and the other the Apostle's. Eusebius felt con- 
scious that it was not safe to rest his case here, 
and we find him reaching out in every direction 
for further proof, satisfied with anything that 
will give color to the fact he labors to establish. 

In another place he states : " Where it is also 
proper to observe the name of John is twice men- 
tioned. The former of which he (Papias) men- 
tions with Peter and James and Matthew, and 
the other apostles ; evidently meaning the evan- 
gelist. But in a separate point of his discourse 
he ranks the other John with the rest not in- 
cluded in the number of apostles, placing Aris- 



Therapeutce. 103 

tion before him. He distinguishes him plainly 
by the name of Presbyter. So that it is here 
proved that the statement of those is true who 
assert there were two of the same name in Asia, 
that there were also two tombs in Ephesus, and 
that both are called John's even to this day ; 
which it is particularly necessary to observe." 
(Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. ,book iii. chap, xxxix.) As 
much as to say to the objecting philosophers, If 
you have proved that one John in Asia was the 
Presbyter John, we prove by Papias that there 
were two, and that one of them was the 
Apostle. If this is so, it is only by inference. 
But it spoils the argument when it is shown that 
when Papias speaks of the two Johns, he does 
not say they were in Asia, or where they were. 
He speaks at the same time of all the Apostles, 
or nearly so, by name, but does not mention 
them, or any of them, in connection with any 
place. To subserve a particular purpose, Ire- 
nseus had asserted that John had been in Ephe- 
sus, where he remained a long time, without the 
least authority to sustain him. It was a bare, 
naked assertion without proof. 

In the third and fourth centuries, during the 



104 Therapeuicu. 

time of Eusebius, this assertion had grown to 
great importance, by reason that, on the fact 
that it was so, was founded the Apostolic suc- 
cession of nearly all the churches in Europe, and 
most of Asia. To maintain the presence of John 
in Asia was as important as it was to prove that 
Peter had been in Rome. Understanding the 
importance of this fact, the philosophers direct- 
ed their attacks upon it, showing that the man 
the Christians called the Apostle was somebody 
else. It devolved upon Eusebius, the most 
learned man of his day, to defend the position. 
The task exceeded his ability, but not his in- 
clination to deceive. If we except Irenaeus, no 
writer has so studiously put himself to work to 
impose falsehoods on the world as Eusebius, 
Bishop of Csesarea. His genius was employed 
in various ways, and especially in perverting 
chronology. Speaking of a class of men who 
gave themselves up to such employments, the 
author of the " Intellectual Development of Eu- 
rope," page 147, says : " Among those who 
have been guilty of this literary offence, the 
name of the celebrated Eusebius, the Bishop of 
Caesarea in the time of Constantine> should be 



Therapeiitce. 105 

designated, since in his chronography and Syn- 
chronal tables he purposely ' perverted chro- 
nology for the sake of making synchronisms.' 
(Bufisen!) It is true, as Niebuhr asserts, ' He 
is a very dishonest writer.' To a great extent, 
the superseding of the Egyptian annals was 
brought about by his influence. It was forgot- 
ten, however, that of all things chronology is the 
least suited to be an object of inspiration, and 
that, though men may be wholly indifferent to 
truth for its own sake, and consider it not im- 
proper to wrest it unscrupulously to what they 
may suppose a just purpose, yet that it will vin- 
dicate itself at last." His character for truth 
stood no better among writers of the fifth cen- 
tury, for Socrates fairly charges that in his life 
of Constantine he had more regard for his own 
advancement than he had for the truth of history. 
(Book i. ch. I.) A whole volume is devoted to 
display the virtues and exalt the character of a 
man who had murdered his son Crispus — his 
nephew Licinius — suffocated his wife Fausta in 
a steam bath, and who, to revenge a pasquinade, 
was with difficulty restrained from the massacre 
of the entire population of Rome. J 

5* 



106 Therapeutcz. 

In another part of this volume we will have 
occasion to detect and expose the genius of this 
Father, in his attempt to create a chronology 
so as to give semblance to a list of men who 
never existed, but who were required to fill an 
important gap in the life of the church. No fit- 
ter instrument could be found to help consum- 
mate the fraud conceived by Irenseus to impose 
a spurious John on the world than Eusebius of 
Csesarea. 



Therapeutce. 107 



CHAPTER VIII. 

The Gnostics. — Irenaeus makes war on them. — His mode 
of warfare. — The Apostolic succession and the ob- 
ject. — No church in Rome to the time of Adrian. — 
Peter never in Rome — nor Paul in Britain, Gaul, or 
Spain. — Forgeries of Irenaeus. 

BEFORE we approach the principal subject 
treated of in this section, it will be proper to say 
something of a sect or society which in its day 
took a leading part in the affairs of the world, 
but which has long since disappeared from his- 
tory, and whose former existence is now only 
known to the careful reader. We refer to the 
Gnostics, who for the most part flourished in the 
second century. They were divided among 
themselves into more than fifty different sects. 
" The principal among them were known under 
the names of Basilidians, Valentinians, and Mar- 
cionites. They abounded in Egypt, Asia, 
Rome, and were found in considerable numbers 
in the provinces of the West. Each of these 



io8 Therapeutce. 

sects could boast of its Bishops and congrega- 
tions, of its doctors and martyrs, and instead of 
the four Gospels adopted by the church, they 
produced a multitude of histories, in which the 
actions and discourses of Christ and his apostles 
were adapted to their respective tenets." — [De- 
cline and Fall, chap. xv. vol. I. p. 257.) They 
supported their opinions by various fictitious 
and apocryphal writings of Adam, Abraham, 
Zoroaster, Christ, and the Apostles. They were 
for the most part composed of Gentiles who 
denied the divine authority of the Old Testa- 
ment, and rejected the Mosaic account of the 
creation, of the origin and fall of man, and 
claimed that a God was unworthy of adoration, 
who for a trivial offence of Adam and Eve pro- 
nounced sentence of condemnation on all their 
descendants. They adored Christ as an Aion, 
or divine emanation, who appeared on the earth 
to reclaim man from the paths of error and 
point out to him the ways of truth ; but with 
these opinions they mingled many sublime and 
obscure tenets derived from oriental philosophy. 
This divine JEon or emanation they consid- 
ered was the Son of God, but was inferior to 



Therapeutce. 109 

the Father, and they rejected his humanity on 
the principle that everything corporeal is essen- 
tially and intrinsically evil. They agreed with 
the Christians in their abhorrence of polytheism 
and idolatry, and both regarded the former a 
composition of human fraud and error, and that 
demons were the authors and patrons of the 
latter. 

As we have stated, the Gnostics for the most 
part sprang up in the second century and dis- 
appeared in the fourth and fifth, suppressed by 
a law of the Emperor Constantine. " The Em- 
peror enacted a law by which they were forbid- 
den to assemble in their own houses of prayer, 
in private houses, or in public places, but were 

compelled to enter the Catholic church 

Hence the greater number of these sectarians 
were led by fear of consequences to join them- 
selves to the church. Those who adhered to 
their original sentiments did not at their death 
leave any disciples to propagate their heresies, 
for, owing to the restrictions to which they were 
subjected, they were prevented from preaching 
their doctrines." — (Sozomen, Ecc. Hist., book 
ii. ch. 32.) 



no Therapeutce. 

Thus passed from history the Gnostics, "the 
most polite, the most learned and most wealthy of 
the Christian name." {Decline and Fall, chap, 
xv. vol. I. p. 256.) Such was the character of 
the men who, brought into collision with the 
orthodox Christians in the second century, be- 
came involved in the most violent and bitter 
struggles in which men were ever engaged. It 
was to defeat and destroy these men that Ire- 
naeus devoted the labor of a lifetime, that on 
their ruin he might erect the Catholic church. 
The undertaking was Herculean, but the means 
employed were well chosen, vigorously and 
tenaciously pursued, and its success is one of 
the most remarkable and exceptional cases in 
history of the triumph of cunning, falsehood, and 
fraud. The grand idea was, that Christ, the 
Son of God, was the founder of the church on 
earth, and that, at his death, the power to estab- 
lish others after him he conferred on the Apos- 
tles, and upon no one else. As they might 
confer this power on others as they had received 
it from Christ, so these last could in turn do the 
same to those who followed them, and in this 
way continue the church through all time. This 



Therapeutcz. 1 1 1 

is what Irenaeus calls the " Apostolic succes- 
sion." A church which could not prove its 
connection with Christ through this Apostolic 
chain was no church at all, and it amounted to 
impiety and vile heresy for such a pretended 
church to undertake to explain or understand 
his gospel. Such a church has no relation to 
Christ, but with demons and evil spirits. 

Irenaeus found it much less difficult to show 
that there was no such succession in the Gnos- 
tic churches than he did in proving that it ex- 
isted in his own. To do this, as we will show 
in another place, he was forced to introduce on 
to the stage the names of at least nine persons 
who, he claimed, had been Bishops of Rome, 
most of whom were mere myths and never had 
an existence, and those who had were never in 
Rome at all. 

Christ, at his death, he further maintains, not 
only conferred on the Apostles the sole right to 
establish churches, but also imparted to them 
some divine knowledge or gifts which they on 
their death intrusted to the church as a special 
deposit for the benefit of all who yielded obedi- 
ence to her authority. These precious gifts left 



H2 Titer apeutce. 

with the church Irenaeus compares to money or 
riches deposited in a bank by a rich man. But 
we will let him speak for himself: "Since, 
therefore, we have such proof, it is not neces- 
sary to seek the truth among others, which is 
easy to obtain from the church ; since the Apos- 
tles, like a rich man depositing his money in a 
bank y lodged in her hands most copiously all 
things pertaining to the truth ; so that every 
man, whosoever, can drazv from her the water of 
eternal life. For she is the entrance to life, and 
all others are thieves and robbers." (Book iii. 
chap. 4, sec. I.) Having established the princi- 
pal proposition by his mere assertion (which is 
his way of making history of all kinds), Ire- 
naeus next proceeds to show that the Gnostics 
could not trace any connection with a church 
founded by the Apostles. " For prior to Val- 
entinianus (he says), those who follow Valentini- 
anus had no existence : nor did those from 
Marcion exist before Marcion ; nor, in short, 
had any of those malignant-minded people, 
whom I have above enumerated, any being pre- 
vious to the initiators and inventors of their per- 
versity." (Book iii. chap. 4, sec. 3.) 



Therapeutce. 113 

The ancient Father has, so far, established two 
of his main propositions : first, that a church must 
derive its origin through the Apostles, or some 
one of them, to be genuine ; and second, that 
there was no such connection in the churches of 
the Gnostics ; and it only remains to show that 
the church claiming to be orthodox had. He 
declines to point out the order of succession in 
all the churches, but consents to do it in the 
case of Rome, which, he says, according to tra- 
dition, derived from the Apostles, was founded 
and organized at Rome by the two glorious 
Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Book iii. chap. 3, 
sec. 2.) The church at Rome, founded by such 
great lights as Peter and Paul, Irenseus continues, 
should be regarded of the highest authority in 
the church, for, he says, " it is a matter of ne- 
cessity that every church should agree with this 
church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, 
that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the 
apostolical tradition has been preserved contin- 
uously by those faithful men who exist every- 
where." (Sec. 2.) 

As Peter was selected to be head of the 
church, and Rome the capital of the Christian 



H4 TherapeutcB. 

world, the scheme to establish a church on the 
ground of an Apostolic succession must fail, 
unless it can appear that Peter had not only been 
there at some time, but that he was also the 
founder of a church at the holy city. A letter 
said to have been written by Clement, the third 
Bishop of Rome, is selected as the medium by 
which it is made to appear that Peter had been 
in Rome ; and Irenasus took upon himself to 
show what he was engaged in while there. At 
the proper place we will show that this Clement 
is a fiction, brought on the stage as a link in the 
Apostolic chain forged by the great criminal of 
the second century. 

Now follows a forgery so apparent on its face, 
that it does not require the skill of an expert to 
detect it. 

"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let 
us come to those who, in these last days, have 
wrestled manfully for the faith ; let us take the 
noble examples of our own age. Through envy, 
the faithful and most righteous pillars of the 
church have been persecuted even to the most 
dreadful deaths. Let us place before your eyes 
the good Apostles. Peter, by unjust envy, un- 



Therapeutce. 115 

derwent not one or two, but many labors : and 
thus having borne testimony unto death, he 
went into the place of glory, which was due to 
him. Through envy, Paul obtained the reward 
of patience. Seven times he was in bonds ; he 
was scourged ; was stoned. He preached both 
in the East and in the West, leaving behind him 
the glorious report of his faith. And thus hav- 
ing taught the whole world of righteousness, 
and reached the fullest extremity of the West, 
he suffered martyrdom by the command of the 
governors, and departed out of this world, and 
went to the holy place, having become a most 
exemplary pattern of patience." {Epistle I. of 
Clement to Corinthians, sec. 5-) By the side of 
this extract we will lay a passage of Irenaeus. 
Speaking of the writers of the Gospels, he 
says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel 
among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, while 
Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and 
laying the foundations of the church." (Book 
iii. chap. I.) Now, we assert with confidence, 
that the hand which penned the first passage 
wrote them both. It is not said in so many words, 
in Clement's letter, that Peter was in Rome, but 



1 1 6 Therapeutce. 

it is to be inferred, as in the case of John at Eph- 
esus. Irenseus seldom states anything which is 
positively untrue in direct language, but makes 
falsehood inferential. The passage we have 
quoted does not contain a single truth, except 
as it relates to Paul. Paul and Peter were never 
engaged together in laying the foundation of a 
church. They quarrelled in Damascus and 
could never agree. The doctrine of circumci- 
sion formed an impassable wall between them, 
and, as we will show, was never given up by 
Peter. Besides, it is not true that Peter had 
anything to do in laying the foundation of 
the church at Rome. 

Christians, during the reign of Claudius in 
Rome, were too few in number and too poor to 
form a church, especially such an one as would 
require the office of a Bishop. Renan, in speak- 
ing of the church in the time of Claudius, says 
it was composed of a " little group — every one 
smelt of garlic. These ancestors of Roman pre- 
lates were poor proletaries, dirty, alike clown- 
ish, clothed in filthy gabardines, having the bad 
breath of people who live badly. Their retreats 
breathed that odor of wretchedness exhaled by 



Therapeutcz. 117 

persons meanly clothed and fed, and collected 
in a small room." (Life of Paul, 96.) 

We have no reason to believe that at any- 
time during the life of Peter was the church of 
Rome, if there was any church there at all, 
composed of different materials or greater in 
numbers than at the time referred to. What 
was there for a Bishop to do in such a crowd, 
or what was there to keep him from starva- 
tion ? Christians engaged in riots growing out 
of the hostility between them and the Jews 
were driven from Rome by an edict of the 
Emperor Claudius, and did not return during 
his reign, which ceased in A.D. 54, when that of 
Nero commenced. In A.D. 58 they had not 
rallied, and at that time Rome was without a 
church. It was the practice in all cases with 
Paul to address Christians through the churches, 
where churches were established ; but his Epis- 
tle, in A.D. 58, to the Romans, is addressed not 
to a church, but " to all that be in Rome." In 
his three years' imprisonment in that city, com- 
mencing in the spring of A.D. 61, he makes no 
mention of a church, nor does he during the 
second, which lasted from the summer or fall 



1 1 8 Therapeutce. 

of A.D. 65 to the spring of A.D. 66. There 
is no proof that the historian can discover, 
worthy of his notice, that there was a church 
in Rome of any kind, even down to the time 
of Adrian, A.D. 117, and even later. We are 
overrun with traditions on this subject, the 
creations of the second century, to which the 
attention of the reader will be called when we 
treat of the twelve traditional Bishops named 
by Irenseus. Adrian, in the seventeeth year of 
his reign, knew so little about a Christian 
church, that he supposed the office of a Bishop 
belonged to the worship of the god Serapis. 
In a letter written by him from Alexandria, A.D. 
134, to his brother-in-law Servianus, he says : 
" The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and 
those are devoted to the god Serapis, who, I 
find, call themselves Bishop of Christ." 

We will dismiss this part of the subject for 
the present, with the promise to return to it 
in a subsequent chapter, when it will be demon- 
strated that there was no Christian church in 
Rome until about the reign of Antoninus Pius.* 

* See Appendix C. 



Therapeutce. 119 

Were Peter and Paul together in Rome at 
all? Paul went there in the spring of A.D. 61, 
for the first time, and remained until the spring 
or summer of A.D. 63. During this time he 
wrote four epistles, as follows : — to the Ephe- 
sians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon, 
and, if we except the first, he closes them by 
naming the persons who are with him. He 
says nothing about Peter, nor does he mention 
his name, so far as we know, during the three 
years he was confined in Rome. That Paul 
should omit to mention Peter, one of the Apos- 
tles, in some of his letters, is the very best 
proof that he was not in Rome at all. After 
his release in the spring of A.D. 63, after mak- 
ing a visit to the churches in Europe and Asia, 
he returned to Rome again in the fall of A.D. 65. 
He had with him a few friends who stood by him 
to the last. They were Luke, Mark, Pudens, 
Linus, and Claudia. There could not have been 
many other Christians in Rome at the time be- 
sides those named, because Paul, after naming 
the above who sent salutations to Timothy, 
adds, "and all the other brethren," which im- 
plies that there were not many of them. Paul 



120 Therapeutce. 

does not mention Peter, because he was not 
there. Timothy, no doubt, was with Paul in 
the winter of A.D. 65 and A.D. 66, and was put 
to death in the spring of the latter year, with 
his friend and fellow-laborer. We never hear 
of him again. In the spring of A.D. 66, the 
labors and sorrows of the great Apostle of the 
Gentiles ceased. He had fought the good 
fight — he had finished his work — he had kept 
the faith ; and now, by his death, bore testi- 
mony to the doctrines he preached. He was 
among the last of Nero's victims. Nothing that 
belongs to history is surer than that Peter and 
Paul never were in Rome together, laying the 
foundation of a church, or anything else. 

Having proved that one-half of what is stated 
by Irenseus in the passage which we have quo- 
ted is false, according to the usual rule for test- 
ing the truth of any statement, we might claim 
that the remaining half is also untrue. But we 
ask no such advantage in disproving any of the 
statements made by this father. 

When was Peter in Rome ? No writer in the 
first or second century pretends to give the 
time when he was in Rome, or when he died. 



Titer apeutce. 121 

Irenseus gives the names of twelve Bishops who 
succeeded each other, commencing w r ith Linus, 
but does not give a single date, so that we can 
tell when or how long any one of them held the 
office. This want of dates, where it was easy 
to give them — if what was stated was true — 
was urged with so much force against what Ire- 
naeus said, that Eusebius, in the fourth century, 
undertook to fix the time when these traditional 
Bishops succeeded, to, and how long each held 
the office. He fails to say when Peter first be- 
came Bishop, or when he ceased to be the head 
of the church, but commences mvino; dates from 
the time of Linus, his successor. Without in- 
tending, he has furnished the data to determine 
when Peter died, if his dates are correct, which 
is not even probable. He says : " After Vespa- 
sian had reigned about ten years, he was suc- 
ceeded by his son Titus ; in the second year of 
whose reign, Linus, Bishop of the church of 
Rome, who held the office about twelve years, 
transferred it to Anacletus." (Eusebius, Ecc. 
Hist., book iii. ch. 13.) As Linus succeeded 
Peter, the latter must have died just before his 
successor took the office. Titus became empe- 



T22 Therapeutce. 

ror June 24th, A. D. 79, and as Linus died two 
years after this, after holding the office twelve 
years, he became Bishop in A. D. 69 ; which 
must have been the year of Peter's death. Nero 
died in June A. D. 68, and at his death the per- 
secution against Christians ceased altogether. 
It is not claimed that Galba, Otho, Vitellius, 
Vespasian, or Titus ever inflicted persecution of 
any kind on Christians during the time they 
held the government of the empire. Eusebius, 
in attempting to fix a date when the second 
Bishop took office, answers the objections made 
to the vagueness of Irenseus, but robs Peter of 
the laurels of a martyr. 

But it is claimed that Linus was installed Bi- 
shop before the death of Peter, and Irenseus 
pretends to give the time. He says: "The 
blessed Apostles then having founded and built 
up the church, committed unto the hands of Li- 
nus the office of the Episcopate." (Book iii. 
ch. 2, sec. 3.) The blessed Apostles are Peter 
and Paul. Now we have just shown that these 
Apostles were never in Rome together, and that 
there was no church to be committed to the 
charge of Linus or anybody else. As it is an 



Tk e rape u tee . 123 

important part of the story that Peter died a 
martyr at Rome, this could only happen to him 
between A. D. 64 and A. D. 68, for the persecu- 
tion under Nero commenced during the former 
year, and ended with his death in A. D. 68. 
We have the most conclusive proof that Peter 
was not in Rome in A. D. 64, when the persecu- 
tions under Nero commenced, nor afterwards. 
He was in Babylon — whether Babylon in Assy- 
ria, Babylon in Mesopotamia or Egypt — he was 
in Babylon more than two thousand miles away. 
Peter was born about the time of Christ, and 
was sixty-four years of age when the persecu- 
tions under Nero began. He was married, and 
when he wrote his first Epistle he was in Baby- 
lon and had his family with him, for he mentions 
the name of Marcus, and calls him his son. 
" The church that is at Babylon, elected to- 
gether with you, saluteth you ; and so doth 
Marcus, my son." (1 Peter v. 13.) 

The date of this epistle is fixed by Dr. Lard- 
ner and other critics at A. D. 64. Did Peter, 
at the age of sixty-four, when he heard that 
Nero was feeding the wild beasts of the Amphi- 
theatre with the flesh and bones of Christians, 



124 Therapeutce. 

" lured by the smell of blood," start for Rome ? 
If Peter was in Babylon in A. D. 64, an " Apos- 
tolic succession," so far as it depends on him, 
must fail, and Rome must surrender the author- 
ity by which she has held the religious world in 
subjection for the last seventeen centuries. 

But this she will never do, as long as her au- 
dacity and cunning are left to hatch schemes to 
escape from the dilemma. Inspired by despair, 
she now claims that Peter means Rome when he 
says Babylon, and that the Marcus spoken of 
was not the son of Peter, but the nephew of 
Barnabas and companion of Paul ! Just as well 
claim anything else, and say Babylon means 
Alexandria, and that Marcus was the stepson 
of Nero. Here two impressions are made : one 
that the letter was written at Babylon, and the 
other that Peter was attended by his son. Are 
both false ? What did Peter, or anybody else, 
expect to gain by giving false impressions ? By 
an agreement between Peter and Paul, made 
early and observed strictly, the labors of the 
former were limited to the circumcised, and he 
found them in large numbers in cities watered 
by the Euphrates. There and in Judea, among 



Titer apeutce. 125 

the Jewish people, was the scene of Peter's la- 
bors, and there he died. He had no business 
in Rome. As there was no church in Rome in 
A. D. 64, it is impossible, if Peter was there at 
the time, for him to make the salutation he does 
in his address to his countrymen. He could 
say, "the church that is at Babylon," but not 
" the church that is at Rome," for there was 
none.* 

Mark the son of Peter, and Mark the ne- 
phew of Barnabas, are two different persons, 
whom the genius of Irenaeus seeks to confound. 
The epistle to Philemon was written in the latter 
part of A. D. 63, which shows that Paul, Timo- 
thy, and Mark were then in Rome. They left 
in the following* spring. During the winter of 
A. D. 63, Paul wrote the Colossians that they 
might expect Mark to visit them, and it would 
seem that he had made arrangements with them 
of some kind in regard to him, when he arrived 
among them. " Marcus, sister's son to Barna- 
bas {touching whom ye received commandments : 
if he come unto you, receive him.") Col, iv. 10. 

* See Appendix B. 



126 Therapeutce. 

Unless Mark changed his mind afterwards, he 
went from Rome to Colosse in Phrygia. The 
next reliable information we have of Paul after 
the spring of A. D. 63, except at Nicopolis in 
A. D. 64, he is back in Rome in the fall of A. D. 
65, and in prison ; and the first knowledge we 
have of Mark, he is in some part of Asia Minor. 
Timothy and Mark were together, and Paul 
writes to the former from his prison, to come to 
Rome and to bring the latter with him, and to 
get there before the winter sets in ; which re- 
quest was complied with. To suppose that 
Mark had been to Rome in the mean time 
would be most unreasonable, and against all the 
probabilities in the case. There was nothing to 
take him there until Paul called him back. If 
Peter was in Rome when he wrote his first 
epistle, in A. D. 64, Mark the nephew of Barna- 
bas was not with him. If Mark saw Peter at all 
in A. D. 64, it was not in Rome. Nor did he 
see him that year in Babylon in Egypt, or Ba- 
bylon in Mesopotamia or Chaldea. 

The latter Babylon was long known for its 
vices and wickedness, and was called a sink of 
iniquity ; and as Rome had become corrupt and 



Titer apeutce. 127 

steeped in crime of all kinds, it is claimed that 
Peter uses the word Babylon in a typical sense 
when he was writing from Rome ! If this is so, 
he did not write from Babylon in Egypt or Me- 
sopotamia, as some have contended, for they 
were each small and inconsiderable places of no 
importance, and there could be no object in 
using either as a type to represent the corrup- 
tions of Rome. If Mark saw Peter in Babylon, 
it was in Chaldea. Measured by degrees of 
longitude, Rome and this Babylon are more 
than two thousand miles apart. Why would 
Mark make a visit to Peter involving a journey 
of four thousand miles, or half that distance ? 
He never did. He could not. He went among 
the Colossians under some arrangement made 
by Paul, and no doubt remained with them un- 
til he was wanted at Rome. When Peter calls 
Mark his son, he means just what he says. 
Mark the companion of Paul, and Mark the 
son of Peter, are two different men. 

What should take Peter to Rome or keep him 
there when burning and torturing Christians 
was one of the amusements of Nero ? Had Pe- 
ter's character for courage so much improved 



128 Therapeutce. 

that he went there when all the Christians had 
gone, to defy Nero, and invite his destruction ? 
There is something in the character of Peter 
that makes it improbable, if not impossible, that 
he should be in Rome in a time of danger. He 
was a man of strong impulses, but a constitu- 
tional coward. He followed Christ to the scene 
of the crucifixion, "but he followed him afar 
off." {Matt. xxvi. 58.) He had pride, and a 
proper sense of manliness, and when he was be- 
trayed through a want of courage into the com- 
mission of a mean act, he had spirit and sense 
enough to be ashamed of it. He denied Christ, 
but it cost him bitter tears of repentance. Either 
his cowardice or his jealousy stood in the way 
of his coming to the aid of Paul, whenever Paul 
was in danger of his life. When the Jews were 
about to tear him to pieces in Jerusalem, and 
he had to be rescued by the Roman soldiers, 
Peter was nowhere about, and we do not even 
hear of him, In his trials before the Roman 
Governors, when he had no one to stand by 
him but a few faithful companions, the presence 
of Peter, at such a time, would have done much 
to aid and console the great champion of a com- 



TherapeutcB. 129 

mon cause. But in all these places there was 
danger, and where danger was was no place for 
Peter. 

He lacked moral, as he did physical courage. 
At Damascus he did not hesitate to sit at the 
same table with the uncircumcised, when there 
was no one present to object ; but when those 
came from Jerusalem who could not tolerate 
the liberal ideas of Paul on circumcision, he 
cowardly sneaked away. Paul took fire at the 
appearance of so much meanness, and boldly 
reproved him. Is this the kind of man who 
would enter the lion's den, and brave the wrath 
of Nero at a time when the tyrant was flooding 
the streets of Rome with the blood of Chris- 
tians ? 

Justin Martyr was born about the year A. D. 
100, and was a native of Neapolis in Syria. 
{Apology, sec. 1.) At the beginning of the 
reign of Antoninus Pius he fixed his abode in 
Rome, and afterwards wrote numerous works, 
principally devoted to the defence of Christians. 
(Cave's Life of Martyr, vol. 2, chap. 6.) No 
one had better opportunities of knowing about 
Peter, and the church at Rome, than he had, 



130 Therapeutce. 

and no one who wrote as much as he did which 
concerned Christianity, would have been more 
likely to mention him, if what Irenseus says of 
him had been true. He is so oblivious of Peter 
that he seems to have been unconscious of his 
existence. No writer in the first years of the 
second century, who is entitled to credit, speaks 
of him, and he first begins to figure in the pages 
of Irenaeus when the disputes with the Gnostics 
were at their height. The Clementines were 
composed later in the century, when Pauline 
Christianity was giving way to the new school, 
and the dogma of an Apostolic succession 
had taken possession of the church. Diony- 
sius, Bishop of Corinth, who lived and wrote 
during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and his 
son Commodus, about A. D. 180, according to 
Eusebius, also states that Paul and Peter were 
at Rome together engaged in laying the foun- 
dation of a church. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., lib. 
ii. ch. 25.) But this writer has got out of the 
Pauline period, and even goes beyond Irenaeus, 
for he states, according to the same authority, 
that Peter and Paul laid the foundation of the 
church at Corinth. 



Therapeutce. 131 

Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, Apol- 
linarius of Hierapolis, all writers about the same 
time, A. D. 180, like Irenaeus, take sides against 
the Gnostics, and show that they were commit- 
ted to the new school. From this time Irenaeus 
is quoted as the authority for the fact that Peter 
and Paul had founded the church at Rome, and 
we are asked to give special weight to what he 
says, as he was the companion of Polycarp, who 
had seen and conversed with John. 

Speaking of Paul, Clement is made to say, 
" He preached both in the East and in the West 
— taught the whole world righteousness, and 
reached the farthest extremity of the West, and 
suffered martyrdom, by the command of the 
Governors." This passage has long been a 
stumbling-block among learned critics. It is 
the only authority on which is founded the 
story, that after Paul was discharged from pris- 
on in A. D. 63, he went into Spain, Gaul, and 
Britain. Caius, the Presbyter, in the beginning 
of the third century, says : " Writings not in- 
cluded in the canon of Scripture expressly 
mention the journey from Rome into Spain." 
Hippolytus, in the same century, says that 



132 Titer apeutee. 

Paul went as far as Illyricum, preaching the gos- 
pel. Athanasius, in the fourth century, says 
that St. Paul did not hesitate to go to Rome 
and Spain. Jerome, in the same century, says 
that " St. Paul, after his release from his trial 
before Nero, preached the Gospels in the West- 
ern parts." (Quoted from Chevallier's Apostol- 
ical Epistles, note, p. 487.) 

There is no authority for Paul's travels in the 
Western provinces, except the passage from 
Clement, and as Irenseus is the founder of the 
story, it is not improved by the repetition of 
subsequent writers. The whole is a transparent" 
falsehood. From the time of Paul's career, 
commencing with his adventure near Damascus 
to the time of his imprisonment in Rome, in the 
spring of A. D. 61, we have an account of his 
travels, and know where he was each year dur- 
ing this time. He never in this time went west 
of Rome. In the spring of A. D. 63, in com- 
pany with Mark, Titus, Timothy and others, he 
left Rome and went in all probability to Colosse, 
where, in pursuance of some agreement he made 
with the people of that place, he left Mark. 
How long he remained is uncertain, but the 



Therapeutcz. 133 

next time we hear of him he is in Crete, where 
no doubt he spent the winter of A. D. 63 and 
A. D. 64. In the mean time he made some con- 
verts, whom he left in charge of Titus, and in 
the spring went west into Macedonia. Some 
time in the summer or fall of A. D. 64 we find 
him in Nicopolis, where he informed Titus he 
meant to spend the winter. The following- 
spring or summer he went to Rome and was 
soon imprisoned. If he was at Colosse or Crete 
in A. d. 63 } and Nicopolis in A. D. 64, he could 
not have gone to Britain, Gaul, and Spain be- 
tween the spring of A. D. 63 and the summer of 
A. D. 65, for it would not be possible. 

But it is conclusive that Paul did not go into 
the provinces of the West after his release from 
prison ; that there is no mention of his travels in 
the West, except what is said in this passage 
from the letter of Clement — a thing impossible, 
when we consider that he never went anywhere 
but he made his mark, and left his footprints 
behind him. Even Paul himself, in his subse- 
quent letters, makes no allusion to any such 
travels, which is accountable upon no other hy- 
pothesis than that he never made them. But 



134 Therapeutce. 

what was gained in fabricating this pas- 
sage ? 

The idea of Irenaeus, that there could be no 
church 1 unless its origin could be traced to some 
one of the Apostles, who were special bankers 
of divine favors, never left him. He furnished 
Rome with Peter, and Asia with John, and now 
he is required to furnish, one for the churches in 
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Here were churches 
in these countries in his day, and who had au- 
thority to establish them ? It would not do to 
claim that either of the Twelve had been in the 
West, for even falsehood has its boundaries. 
Paul will do. He is the great Apostle of the 
Gentiles. Besides, according to the Acts, he 
had submitted to ordination at the hands of the 
Apostles. The explanation of the reasons which 
dictated this spurious passage in Clement's let- 
ter is consistent with the acts of Irenaeus, and 
the whole current of his thoughts throughout 
his life. But this story, invented by him, has 
been repeated by others, until it settled down — ■ 
as history ! It is clear from the proof here 
shown, that Irenaeus has no claim to our belief 
as a writer, and that the statements he makes in 



Therapeutcz. 135 

regard to Peter in Rome and Paul in the West 
are mere inventions of his own to assist him in 
his disputes with the Gnostics, in which he was 
engaged for the best part of his life. 



136 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER IX. 

The claim of Irenaeus that Mark was the interpreter of 
Peter, and Luke the author of the third Gospel, con- 
sidered. — Luke and Mark both put to death with 
Paul in Rome. 

Irenaeus, after stating that Peter and Paul 
preached in Rome and laid the foundation of a 
church at that place, continues: " After their 
departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of 
Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what 
had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the 
companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gos- 
pel preached by him." (Book iii. sec. 1.) 
Again no time is given. The last time we know 
anything of Mark and Luke that is certain, or at 
all reliable, they were both with Paul in Rome. 
In his second letter to Timothy he says : " Only 
Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him 
with thee : for he is profitable to me for the 
ministry." (2 Timothy iv. 11.) That Timothy 
obeyed this request and took Mark with him, 



Therapeutic. 137 

does not admit of doubt. Paul and Timothy 
were inseparable, and Mark was Paul's near 
friend and companion. This must have been in 
the fall of A. D. 65, when Paul was in prison, 
with little or no hope to escape the second time 
from the fangs of Nero. 

At the time Timothy and Mark entered Rome, 
the fury of Nero raged with all its sanguinary 
cruelty. It was just about the time the conspira- 
cy of Piso was brought to light. Made mad by 
his fears, he struck in all directions. Not con- 
tent with the destruction of the conspirators, he 
put to death all who offended his vanity or moved 
his jealousy. Seneca, a man whose many vir- 
tues added lustre to the Roman people, and who 
was an honor to any age, was not suffered to live. 
His very virtues gave offence to the tyrant. Lu- 
can and others, distinguished for genius and 
learning, were put to death. Tacitus says that at 
this time "the city presented a scene of blood, 
and funerals darkened all the streets." (Annals y 
book XV. sec. 21.) Speaking of the events of 
the year 66, when Paul was put to death, the 
same writer says : " We have nothing before us 
but tame servility, and a deluge of blood spilt 



138 Therapeutcs. 

by a tyrant in the hour of peace. The heart 
recoils from the dismal story. But let it be 
remembered by those who may hereafter think 
these events worthy of their notice, that I have 
discharged the duty of an historian, and if in re- 
lating the fate of so many eminent citizens, who 
resigned their lives to the will of one man, I 
mingle tears with indignation, let me be allowed 
to feel for the unhappy. The truth is, the wrath 
of Heaven was bent against the Roman State. 
The calamities that followed cannot, like the 
slaughter of an army or the sacking of a city, 
be painted forth in one general draught. Re- 
peated murders must be given in succession." 
(Annals, B. XVI. sec. XVI.) The author then 
proceeds to give a long list of victims. At the 
time Paul was in prison, and Mark and Luke hi r 
companions were with him, the Roman legions, 
under the command of Vespasian, were march- 
ing to make war upon the Jews, if they had not 
done so already. They had rebelled and defied 
the power of Rome. At this time, no Jew could 
be in Rome and live. Not only was the anger 
of Nero aroused against them, but that of the 
entire people of Rome — and this feeling did not 



Therapeutce. 139 

abate until after almost the entire nation was 
destroyed. No doubt Timothy, Luke, Linus, 
Paul, and all others who were with them, perish- 
ed in the general calamity. Why put to death 
Paul, and not his fellow-laborers ? Nero waged 
war not against Christians, but against Christi- 
anity. We trace all these parties inside the gates 
of Rome, and then we lose their trail forever. 
There is not one single item of reliable proof that 
any one of them ever left the doomed city. The 
footprints of Christians going into Rome at this 
time were like the tracks going into the cave of 
Polyphemus — many were seen going in, but none 
coming out. 

We learn from Eusebius and Jerome, that 
Mark went to Egypt and founded a church at 
Alexandria, and the latter states that he died 
and was buried there in the eighth year of the 
reign of Nero. This is impossible. As Nero 
commenced his reign A.D. 54, this would make 
him die in A.D. 62. Now we find him alive 
with Paul in A.D. 65. Eusebius, in his loose 
way, says : "The same Mark, they say also, 
being the first that was sent to Egypt, proclaimed 
the gospel there which he had written, and first 



140 TherapemtcB. 

established churches in Alexandria." (Book I. 
ch. 16.) This father had special reasons why 
he wanted to get Mark to Alexandria. The 
close resemblance between Christians and Thera- 
peutae, as we have shown, was a reason with 
him why he should insist that the latter were in 
fact believers in Christ by a different name. 
Mark is sent to be their teacher, and was 
claimed to be the founder of this new sect of 
Christians. Nothing is wider from the truth. 
If ever Mark or Luke left Rome, there is no rea- 
son why we should not hear something of them. 
Situated as they were in their relations with the 
founders of Christianity, had they survived the 
slaughter at Rome, one or both would have left 
behind them evidence, of some kind, of their 
escape. What remained of Paul, Timothy, 
Mark, Luke, Linus and others after they entered 
Rome in the winter of A.D. 55 and A.D. 66, could 
only be found after that time among the graves 
of Nero's victims. Whatever Mark and Luke 
wrote, in the nature of Gospels, was written be- 
fore they entered the gates for the last time. 

As this was in A. D. 65 or A. D. 66, and the 
gospels ascribed to them were neither extant 



Therapeu t&. 141 

nor known before the beginning of the second 
century, we are forced to look to some other 
quarter for those who wrote them. 

But what proof is there that Mark and Peter 
were on such intimate terms as is claimed by 
Irenseus ? None, except that which is afford- 
ed in the first Epistle of Peter (1 Peter v. 13), 
wherein Mark is spoken of by Peter as his son. 
What better evidence can we have of the stu- 
died dishonesty of Irenaeus, than his attempt to 
have it appear or believed that the Mark refer- 
red to in the first of Peter, was the companion 
of Paul and interpreter of Peter ? We have just 
shown he was not — but an entirely different 
person, and it sweeps away the whole founda- 
tion upon which rests the claim that the Gospel 
of Mark was written at the dictation of Peter. 
While Mark was with Paul, either in Rome 
or Asia Minor, Peter, with his son Mark, is 
preaching among the Jews of Chaldea. 

What Presbyter John says on this subject is 
here worthy of notice. Eusebius, speaking of 
the writings of Papias, says : " He also inserted 
into his work other accounts of the above-men- 
tioned Aristion respecting our Lord, as also the 



142 Therapeutce. 

traditions of the Presbyter John, to which refer- 
ring those that are desirous of learning them, 
we shall now subjoin to the extracts from him 
already given a tradition which he sets forth 
concerning Mark, who wrote the Gospel, in the 
following words : ' And John the Presbyter also 
said this : Mark being the interpreter of Peter, 
whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great 
accuracy, but not in the order in which it was 
spoken or done by our Lord, fcr he neither 
heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, 
he was in company with Peter, who gave him 
such instruction as was necessary, but not to give 
a history of our Lord's discourses. ' ' (Eusebius, 
Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 39.) Papias here 
gives a tradition derived through Presbyter 
John. Slender proof that Peter dictated the Gos- 
pel of Mark ! To rank among canonical Gos- 
pels, and as a corner-stone of Christianity, with 
the authority of an inspired book, the proof falls 
far below what we have a right to expect and 
demand. On such a subject it is no proof at all. 
It is difficult to tell what Mark did write, ac- 
cording to Papias. What he did write was not 
in the order in which the events in the life of 



Therapeutcz. 14 



Christ occurred— nor in the order in which he 
spoke or taught. Peter would not allow him to 
give the history of our Lord's discourses. If 
that is so, then the Gospel to which Papias re- 
fers is not our present Gospel of Mark, This 
relates the acts of Christ in the order of time, ( 
and gives his discourses in full. In this respect 
the second Gospel does not differ from the first 
and third. It is quite probable that Mark, in 
his intercourse with the Apostles, may have 
learned many things in relation to Christ which 
he wrote out, but which, like the Hebrew Gos- 
pel of Matthew, was condemned or cast one 
side, as it did not help to strengthen the new 
ideas in relation to Christ, which sprang up 
some time before the death of Paul. But we 
can never know what Mark wrote, as Papias 
does not claim he ever saw it, nor do we know 
of any one who did. 

What is said by Clement of Alexandria and 
all other writers on the origin of the second Gos- 
pel is derived from the extract taken from the 
works of Papias, and from what is said by Ire- 
nseus : their statements do not better the case, 
any more than a superstructure will give strength 



144 Therapeutce. 

to the base on which it rests. If Mark ever 
wrote anything, it would contain nothing that 
did not accord with Paul, for he was not only 
his fellow-traveller, but he was his fellow-laborer 
in the spread of the doctrines of Christianity ; 
and so near and dear were the relations between 
them, that when Paul saw his end approach, he 
wrote to Timothy to bring Mark with him, as 
brother would for brother, for a parting inter- 
view. What Paul taught, Mark believed — and 
Paul dead or Paul in life would have made no 
difference with Mark. 

After reading the Gospel of Mark, who would 
suppose that he had been the companion of 
Paul and the interpreter of Peter ? We would 
expect to find some thought or expression that 
had in it the soul of Paul, as his very spirit pen- 
etrated all his followers and made them a reflex 
of himself. Paul drew from the depths of his 
own consciousness, which he took for revela- 
tions, the ideas which formed the basis of his 
religion and made Christ what he believed him 
to be. It was a holy faith with him, discon- 
nected from all material laws. The second Gos- 
pel is founded on works, and the divinity of 



Therapcuta. 1 4 5 

Christ proven by his power over the laws of the 
universe. All nature bows down before him ; 
even demons and evil spirits fly before his pres- 
ence. Mark the interpreter of Peter ! ! Where 
do we see Peter in the Gospel of Mark ? What, 
all at once, has become of circumcision ? Did 
he, after his quarrel with Paul, shake off his 
Jewish prejudice and bigotry and rise to a 
higher plane ? The proof is he did not. 

Paul, Luke, and Mark were as companions 
inseparable — they were fellow-laborers, held the 
same doctrines, died for the same cause and at 
the same time. 

In another chapter we inquired from what 
source Luke got his knowledge of the wonder- 
ful statement he makes in relation to the visita- 
tion of the angel to Mary and Zacharias, for he 
did not get it from Paul, who never mentions 
the name of Mary. We now ask, from 
whom did Mark learn the story of John 
the Baptist ? Paul knew nothing about him. 
Who had a better opportunity than he to know 
everything which related to him, if he had been 
the person described by Mark ? What better 
proof can be offered to show that neither Luke 



146 Therapeutce. 

nor Mark wrote the Gospels ascribed to them, 
than that they are made to state matters which 
lay at the bottom of Christianity in after-ages, 
of which Paul, their teacher and co-laborer, 
knew nothing ? To find the authors of these 
Gospels we must look to the second century. 



Therapeutce. 147 



CHAPTER X. 

Acts of the Apostles. — Schemes to exalt Peter at the 
expense of Paul. 

The Acts of the Apostles dates between A. D. 
140 or 150 and A. D. 170. The book, as we 
now find it, was not in existence before Justin's 
Apology, because before his time there were no 
miracles, as will be shown ; while the Acts 
abounds in them of the most extravagant cha- 
racter. Between A. D. 140 or 150, and A. D. 
180, is the time when the war among the dif- 
ferent sects raged with the greatest violence, 
and frauds and forgeries were practised by all 
parties without remorse or shame. It was dur- 
ing this time that Lazarus was made to rise 
superior to death, and assume his place among 
men, after his body had become putrid and be- 
gan to decay. There was nothing too false or 
extravagant for parties to assert at this period 
of the world, and the only wonder is, that the 
absurd stories of the age have passed down to 



1 48 Therapeuta. 

subsequent generations as truths of a revealed 
religion. 

The book of the Acts, in its present form, 
came to light soon after the doctrine of the 
Apostolic succession was conceived, for it is 
very evident that the first half is devoted to give 
prominence to Peter among the Apostles, who 
was to be made the corner-stone of the Church. 
As all other churches are made to bow to the 
supremacy of Rome, so all the Apostles must 
be subordinate to Peter. This is so obvious 
that the work is overdone. On the day of Pen- 
tecost he is put forward to explain the miracle 
of the cloven tongue, and show that it was in 
accordance with what the prophet Joel had fore- 
told — which if Peter did say what he is made to 
say, only proved his ignorance of what the pro- 
phet meant. His miraculous powers are won- 
derful. He cured a man forty years old, who 
had been lame from his birth, so that he leaped 
and walked. His power extends over death, 
and he raises Dorcas from the grave. He is now 
chief speaker. Ananias and his wife Sapphira 
fall down dead before him. So extraordinary 
is his power over diseases, " that they brought 



Therapeutce. 149 

forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on 
beds and couches, that at the least the shadow 
of Peter passing by might overshadow some of 
them/' (Acts v. 15.) 

It is surprising that the incredulity of the Jews 
did not give way before such wonderful works ; 
but it seems it did not, and the only effect pro- 
duced on their minds was to send Peter to 
prison. Peter is twice committed to prison for 
doing good, and the sole object in sending him 
there is to give an opportunity to the Lord to 
deliver him, and show that he is under the 
special protection and guardianship of God. ' 
" And behold, the angel of the Lord came 
upon him, and a light shined in the prison ; and 
he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, 
saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell 
off from his hands. And the angel said unto 
him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals : and 
so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy 
garment about thee, and follow me." (Acts xii. 
7, 8.) " And when Peter was come to himself, 
he said, Now I know of a surety that the Lord 
hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me 
out of the hand of Herod, and from all the 



1 50 Therapezttce. 

expectation of the people of the Jews " (verse 

11). 

The person over whom the Lord had mani- 
fested so much care, must certainly have been 
set apart to act some great part in his provi- 
dences towards our race. At the time we are 
writing about, the struggle between the follow- 
ers of Peter and Paul was raging ; the latter 
claiming that the Apostle of the Gentiles was of 
equal authority as to doctrine with Peter or any 
of the Apostles ; while the former insisted that 
Paul had a special commission — to convert the 
'Gentiles — and as he had performed his work, 
his mission ceased, and he was no longer to be 
regarded as an authority in the church. No less 
a person than God himself can settle the dis- 
pute, and the cunningly devised stories of Cor- 
nelius, and Paul's conversion, are introduced 
into the Acts in order to give the Lord an op- 
portunity to decide between the two parties. 

Cornelius, a devout man, is laboring under 
what is called religious conviction, and is in 
doubt what to do. He stands in need of a 
spiritual adviser, and when in this condition of 
mind, " He saw in a vision evidently, about the 



Therapeutcz. 151 

ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming 
in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 
And when he looked on him he was afraid, and 
said, What is it, Lord ? And he said unto him, 
Thy prayers and thy alms are come up for a 
memorial before God. And now send men to 
Joppa, and call for one Simoit } whose surname 
is Peter." (Acts x. 3, 4, 5.) The centurion 
was sent to Peter, because he was the deposi- 
tary of divine light, and the dispenser of spiri- 
tual gifts — an intimation from God to all the 
world, for all ages, where men must look to, to 
find the true interpreter and expounder of reli- 
gious faith. Cornelius did as he was com- 
manded. 

But it was not enough that this was true of 
Peter ; but it must be shown that Paul was but 
a simple missionary, whose powers ended with 
his death. To do this, the story of his conver- 
sion in the Acts is told, notwithstanding it is in 
direct conflict with what Paul says himself on 
the subject. When Ananias was requested by 
the Lord to call on Paul while he was still pros- 
trate from the effects of the blow he received 
near Damascus, he declined to do so — appar- 



152 Therapeutcz. 

ently in fear of Paul, on account of his previous 
treatment of Christians. This gave the Lord 
an opportunity to tell Ananias, why he is anx- 
ious to do as he was requested. " But the Lord 
said unto him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen 
vessel unto me, to bear my name before the 
Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel : 
for I will shew him how great things he must suf- 
fer for my name's sake." {Acts ix. 15, 16.) 

The Lord has now settled all disputes be- 
tween the followers of Peter and Paul, and the 
office of each is settled and defined. Under 
such a judgment, pronounced by God himself, 
no wonder the influence of Paul ceased to be 
felt in the latter part of the second century, and 
Peter proportionally increased in weight and 
authority. This attempt to put up Peter and 
put down Paul, determines the date of the Acts, 
and fixes it somewhere between A.D. 150 and 
A.D. 170, a period in the century prolific of 
spurious writings. It may be called the Petrine 
age of Christianity. 

When Paul made his defence before the Jews 
at Jerusalem, and explained to them the mode 
of his conversion, it would be dangerous, or at 



Therapeu tcz. 153 

least suspicious, to leave out the story of Corne- 
lius ; but as it differed so much from the one he 
gives in second Corinthians-, it was necessary to 
omit the one given in the epistle entirely. But 
the fraud is easily detected. The account as 
given in the Acts, to the sixth verse inclusive, is 
as it was doubtless delivered by Paul ; but from 
this point the story diverges from the one given 
by himself, and is a sheer fabrication. "And 
it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and 
was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, 
suddenly there shone from heaven a great light 
round about me." (Acts xxii. 6.) Then ac- 
cording to Paul's account, given in his letter to 
the Corinthians, he was caught up to the third 
heaven, and there heard unspeakable words 
which it was not lawful for man to utter. What 
transpired between God and Paul, all took place 
in heaven, where no man could bear witness. 
The account in the Acts, which commences in 
the seventh verse, says that after the light shone 
from heaven, Paul fell to the ground, and did 
not ascend to heaven, but was led by the same 
light to Damascus. This version is to let in the 
story of Ananias. He could not bear witness * 
7* 



1 54 Therap eittcs. 

to what passed between the Lord and Paul in 
the third heaven, but he might if the scene was 
laid on the earth. Besides, what passed be- 
tween the Lord and Paul the latter does not 
pretend to state, for the words he heard were 
unspeakable and not lawful for man to utter. 
There is nothing in the story in the Acts- that is 
unspeakable or unlawful to be repeated, unless 
it is to be regarded as a piece of blasphemy. 

Had Paul told the story as given in the Acts 
in his defence, there was nothing in it to arouse 
the Jews to such a pitch of madness as to cause 
them to insist that he should be put to death. 
There was more in it to provoke a sneer than to 
excite anger. The scene in Jerusalem, when 
Paul was compelled to make his defence, was in 
A.D. 58, and he could have appealed to Ana- 
nias, who in the course of nature might still be 
living, and others, if the story was true. It was 
not the story in the Acts that incensed the Jews. 
When Paul claimed he was taken up to heaven, 
and there met the Lord and talked to him face 
to face, he had reached, in the minds of his 
hearers, a point in blasphemy that drove them 
to frenzy, so that they exclaimed : " Away with 



Therapeutcz. 155 

such a fellow from the earth : for it is not fit that 
he should live." The Jews listened to Stephen 
with patience until he exclaimed, "Behold, I 
see the heavens opened, and the Son of man 
standing at the right hand of God," when they 
could stand it no longer, and ran upon him with 
one accord and stoned him to death. It is clear 
that Paul's defence, made before the Jews, of 
his conversion, is omitted, and the story of An- 
anias substituted, to aid the enemies of Paul in 
placing Peter over him. 

When we find the same story variously stated 
by Paul, and in the Acts, there should be no 
hesitation in choosing between the two. The 
Acts, like the works of the early fathers, bears 
so many marks of forgeries, to suit the emer- 
gencies and wants of the day, that very little 
contained in either is of any historic value. The 
epistles of Paul had obtained a large circulation 
before the time when the men of the second 
century inaugurated an era of forgeries, and long 
before the Acts were in existence ; so that the 
forgers were compelled to exercise great caution 
when they came to deal with the epistles, and 
only ventured to insert passages into the genu- 



156 Therapeutce. 

ine writings to give the sanction of his name to 
the doctrines of the Alexandrian or Johannean 
school, or some dogma of the day. Such pas- 
sages are scattered all through the epistles, but 
we can easily point them out, for they are doc- 
trinal and exceedingly pointed. 

Peter disappears at the end of the twelfth 
chapter ; but enough has been done to make 
him chief among the Apostles, and claim for 
him a spiritual supremacy in all matters which 
relate to the church. John, afterwards the great 
light of Asia, only plays the part of an esquire 
to Peter, his lord and superior. They are often 
together, but John is not suffered to speak. It 
was designed that John, who was to take Asia 
in charge, should stand next to Peter ; but the 
writer, by imposing silence on him on all occa- 
sions, took care that the supremacy of Peter was 
not put in jeopardy.' The preaching of Philip 
in Samaria was a device to show that Peter and 
John were superior to the rest of the Apostles 
in their power to confer the Holy Ghost. Philip 
made many converts, both men and women, and 
he baptized them — but his baptism was not suffi- 
cient. " Now when the Apostles which were 



Therapeuice. 157 

at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received 
the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and 
John. They laid their hands on them, and they 
received the Holy Ghost." — Acts viii. 14, 17. 

According to Paul, and this is made clear by 
the quarrels between him and Peter, as related 
in the epistles, the latter was tenacious to 
the last for the Jewish rite of circumcision, 
and we have no evidence, and no reason to be- 
lieve, that he ever gave it up. A sectarian Jew 
would never answer to be the head and founder 
of a Catholic church. The sectarian character 
of Peter must* be got rid of, and we see studied 
efforts in the Acts to do so. We have seen 
that Peter, in the first words he addressed to 
Cornelius, took the opportunity to declare that 
he believed in the doctrine that God was no re- 
specter of persons. But this was not enough, 
in the opinion of the writer of the Acts, or at 
least the first half, and to make Peter's emanci- 
pation from his old Jewish opinions more con- 
spicuous, and enable him to explain how it hap- 
pened that the change was brought about, the vi- 
sion of Peter on the house-top is produced. He 
went up upon the house-top to pray, about the 



158 TherapeutcB. 

sixth hour, and became very hungry ; but while 
they were preparing something for him to eat, 
he had a trance, " And saw heaven opened, and 
a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had 
been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and 
let down to the earth : wherein were all manner 
of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild 
beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter ; 
kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord ; 
for I have never eaten anything that is common 
or unclean. And the voice spake unto him 
again the second time, What God hath cleansed, 
that call not thou common. This was done 
thrice : and the vessel was received up again 
into heaven." 

The command of the Lord to Peter to eat, 
was a command to give up his Jewish views and 
notions ; for that all flesh was alike, and equally 
proper to be taken on an empty stomach. Peter 
was at a loss to understand the vision, and while 
he was revolving the subject in his mind, Corne- 
lius and his party came to be instructed by him, 
in accordance with the directions of the Lord. 
When Cornelius, who was of the Gentiles, made 



Th e rape utce. 159 

known the object of his visit, Peter at once un- 
derstood the import of the vision, and exclaimed, 
" Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter 
of persons," and that the gospel of Christ is to 
supply the spiritual wants of all nations, as the 
beasts and fowls are to furnish food for the hun- 
gry. 

The conversion of Peter receives further im- 
portance and prominence from the defence he 
is compelled to make before the brethren, for his 
disregard of the rite of circumcision in the bap- 
tism of Cornelius. Peter makes a speech, in 
which he declares that he was commanded by 
God, not less than three times, to give up his 
old Jewish notions ; and no sooner was the com- 
mand given than Cornelius, a Gentile, who was 
sent to him by God, made his appearance. The 
command from God to Peter, and the arrival of 
the centurion, who was instructed by the Lord 
to come to him, left him no choice in the matter, 
and that he baptized the Gentile, in obedience 
to the commands of the Lord. The reason was 
sufficient. "When they heard these things, 
they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, 
Then hath God also to the Gentiles pranted re- 



160 Therapeutcs. 

pentance unto life." (Acts. xi. 18.) The wall 
between Jew and Gentile is now broken down, 
and Peter a fit subject for the head of a univer- 
sal or catholic church. 

It seems that the person who put the speech 
into the mouth of Peter, renouncing circumci- 
sion, was not satisfied with what he said at the 
time. Something had been omitted or over- 
looked. Peter had shed his Jewish skin, but 
the Lord had not given him a commission to 
preach the gospel to all nations, and this he 
must have to be the head of a universal church. 
At the council held at Jerusalem by the Apos- 
tles to settle the question of circumcision, Peter, 
according to the Acts, seizes the opportunity to 
supply the omission: "And when there had 
been much disputing, Peter rose up and said 
unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how 
that a good while ago, God made choice among 
us, that the Gentiles, by my mouth, should hear 
the word of the gospel, and believe. " (Actsx.v. 
7.) Now there was no occasion for Peter to 
make this claim or assertion, for it had nothing 
to do with the subject before the council, and 
was not true. The account which Paul gives 



Therapeutce. 1 6 1 

of what took plaj:e at the council is quite differ- 
ent, contradictory, and no doubt true. He 
says, when he stated before the council the 
trouble and vexations which were occasioned 
by this rite, and reasons why it should not be 
forced on the Gentiles, that Peter, James, and 
John agreed with him — gave him the right hand 
of fellowship, and then entered into a compact 
that he should go to the Gentiles, and they to 
the circumcised. (Gal. ii.) 

This agreement was never departed from ; 
but not so with regard to circumcision. That 
Peter, James, and all the disciples disregarded 
the order of the Council in regard to that sub- 
ject, is rendered clear by their subsequent con- 
duct. After that, as much as two years, for 
the Council was held in A.D. 4-9 or A.D. 50, 
and the epistle to the Galatians was written in 
A. D. 52, Peter went to Antioch, where he found 
Paul. He ate with the uncircumcised until some 
Jewish converts came from Jerusalem at the in- 
stance of James, who found fault with his course. 
Peter, it seems, then changed front and stood 
up for circumcision. " I withstood him to the 
face," says Paul, for he was wrong. A discus- 



1 62 TherapeutcB. 

sion springs up. Paul claimed that men were 
not to be saved through old rites and ceremo- 
nies, nor by works, but by faith. At this time, 
neither James nor Peter had given up their 
contracted notions on the Jewish rite. Nor had 
Peter as late as A. D. 57, twenty-four years after 
the death of Christ. Of the four parties which 
disturbed the peace of the church at Corinth at 
the time of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans, which was written in A. D. 57, the party of 
Cephas was one. Peter was at the head of a 
party which held out for circumcision, seven 
years after the council at Jerusalem ; and if he 
had not given it up then, when he was fifty- 
seven years old, there is no reason to believe 
he did after that. Nothing gave the men in the 
second century who undertook to put Peter at 
the head of a universal church so much trou- 
ble as this thing of circumcision, which we can 
readily detect by the pains and labors they have 
taken to free him from it. But the stain will 
not wash out. 

The story told in the Acts about the way in 
which Peter was disenthralled from his narrow- 
Jewish notions, is wholly inconsistent with the 



Therapeutcz. 163 

subsequent history of the church at Jerusalem. 
After the Lord had taken so much pains to 
prove to the disciples that a new dispensation 
had commenced, and the wall between the Jews 
and Gentiles was broken down, there was no 
reason why they should not all dispense with 
the practice of circumcision. But they never did. 
The fifteen first Bishops of Jerusalem, commenc- 
ing with James and including Judas, were all cir- 
cumcised Jews. (Eus. , Ex. H. , B. , iv. ch. v. Sul- 
picius Severus, vol. 1 1 -3 1 . ) With the twelve dis- 
ciples, jealousy of Paul, who fought this Jewish 
practice to the last, seemed to be the most active 
feeling of their natures, and we seldom hear of 
them unless they were dogging his footsteps, and 
stirring up the Jews against him. It was through 
their intrigues that the doors of the synagogue 
were slammed in his face wherever he went. 

The doctrine of ordination, through which that 
deposit of divine riches which Irenaeus says 
Christ left with the Apostles is made to flow in 
an uninterrupted current through all time, is 
conspicuously presented in the Acts. When 
Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch, and about 
to start for the West, on a mission to preach to 



1 64 Ther apeutcB. 

the Gentiles, the Lord said, " Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I 
have called them. And when they had fasted and 
prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent 
them away." (Acts xiii. 2, 3.) Nothing could 
impose so great a humiliation as this upon Paul. 
The Lord again interferes and assigns him to a 
special duty, and to make this humiliation com- 
plete, he is ordered to receive his commission at 
the hands of the Apostles. Who laid their hands 
on Barnabas and Paul, is not stated, nor is it of 
any importance, as the object of the statement 
is to make it apparent that the latter, the great 
light of the Gentiles, submitted to the rite of or- 
dination by the imposition of hands, administer- 
ed by some one of the Apostles. Will any one 
believe this story to be true ? If he does, 1 .; 
does not understand the character of Paul. 
There is nothing he would resent with so much 
feeling, as he would such an admission on his 
part that he was less than an Apostle. When it 
was claimed he was not, his soul took fire, and in 
his address to the Galatians, in the first chap- 
ter, he delivers himself in this defiant strain : 
"Paul, an Apostle, (not of men, neither by 



Th c rape tit a. 165 

man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, 
who raised him from the dead.) But when it 
pleased God, who separated me from my moth- 
er's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal 
his Son in me, that I might preach him among 
the heathen ; immediately I conferred not with 
flesh and blood : Neither went I up to Jerusa- 
lem to them which were Apostles before me." 
(Gal. i. 1, 15, 16, 17.) Is this the Paul who pa- 
tiently submits to receive his commission from 
an Apostle to preach the doctrines of Christ to 
the nations of the earth at Antioch, when he is 
about to commence his labors ? 

It is not enough that Paul should submit to 
receive the Holy Ghost at the hands of the 
Apostle, and in this way be authorized to preach 
the gospel ; but he gives the ordinance his full 
sanction by conferring ordination on others. 
" And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was 
at Corinth, Paul having passed' through the 
upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; and finding 
certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye 
received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? 
And they said unto him, We have not so 
much as heard whether there be any Holy 



1 66 Therapetdce. 

Ghost. And when Paul had laid his hands 
upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; 
and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." 
(Acts xix. i, 2,6.) No stronger proof could be 
given that the followers of Paul were opposed 
to the Episcopacy and the doctrine of succession 
and ordination, and contended against a govern- 
ment by Bishops with zeal to the last, than the la- 
bored and frequent efforts that are made to show 
that he himself gave his sanction to the order. 

For Paul's persistence in claiming a human 
origin for Christ, there was a studied effort in 
the second century to destroy his claims as an 
Apostle ; but after his epistles had undergone 
alterations so as to make Christ the Son of God 
in the sense of Philo, that is, who existed from 
all time, he was restored to favor, and his pow- 
ers wonderfully magnified. He is now able to 
work miracles, and his power to heal diseases is 
such, that whatever comes in contact with his 
person, is so filled or imbued with holy energy, 
that its curative properties are sufficient to put 
death at defiance. 

It is clear that the Acts of the Apostles is not 
the work of one century, but of two. The real 



Therapeutce. 167 

itinerary of Paul commences in the thirteenth 
chapter, and from this to the end of the Acts, we 
can trace his footsteps in his various journeys 
among the churches, until he finally enters the 
gates of Rome, in the spring of A.D. 61. 



1 68 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER XL 

Matthew the author of the only genuine Gospel. — Re- 
jected, because it did not contain the two first chap- 
ters of the present Greek version. 

Matthew, surnamed Levi, was a native of 
Galilee. Before his conversion to Christianity 
he was a publican, or tax-gatherer, under the 
Romans, and collected the customs of all goods 
exported or imported at Capernaum, a mari-" 
time town on the Sea of Galilee, and received 
tribute paid by passengers who went by water. 
From the position of Matthew, he must have 
been a man of some learning and judgment, and 
from what we know of the early lives of the 
other Apostles, the only one among them, ex- 
cept perhaps Peter and James, that was capa- 
ble of writing out a correct account of what 
was said and done by Christ. 

As the first church at Jerusalem increased 
in number, and new converts were added to it, 
there was a necessity that there should be some 



TJierapeutce. 169 

written history given of what was said and 
taught by Christ before his death ; and as 
Matthew was in every way qualified, the task 
was imposed on him. Matthew wrote this book 
about A.D. 40, not much, if any, more than 
seven years after the death of Christ. Every- 
thing was fresh in his memory, and no doubt 
he was particular to give to the new converts a 
full and correct knowledge of all the doctrines 
taught by Christ, and especially to place before 
them his sermon on the mount, so full of divine 
morality, which was to form the soul of the new 
religion. 

From all we know with certainty, this Gos- 
pel of Matthew was the only account of Christ 
in use among the members of the first Chris- 
tian church, and their only means of informa- 
tion, except what they learned direct from the 
other Apostles. Everything, then, was just as 
it fell from the lips of Christ, and had the odor 
of fresh-gathered flowers. How the Christians 
at Jerusalem clung to this Gospel of Matthew, 
their sufferings and persecutions through a pe- 
riod of more than two centuries will bear wit- 
ness. These Christians, afterwards called by 
8 



i jo Therapeuice. 

way of aversion Ebionites, were charged with 
the alteration of the Scriptures. This alteration, 
according to Epiphanius, consisted in the addi- 
tion of the first two chapters of Matthew, which 
contain the account of the miraculous concep- 
tion of Christ. The statements of Epiphanius 
are verified by the fact, that at the time these 
two chapters were added, by the men of the sec- 
ond century, we can -trace through the pages of 
Ignatius, and other early fathers, numerous for- 
geries and interpolations which are unmistaka- 
ble, and were intended to sustain the new aspect 
which Christianity took on in the early part of 
the second century. The addition of the two 
chapters, and the forgeries, belong to the period 
when the religion of Paul had passed off into the 
Philo-Alexandrian period of Christianity. Eu- 
sebius informs us what were the crimes of the 
Ebionites: " They are properly called Ebio- 
nites by the ancients, as those who cherished a 
low and mean opinion of Christ. For they 
consider him a plain and common man, and jus- 
tified in his advances in virtue, and that he was 
born of the Virgin Mary by natural generation." 
(Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 27.) 



Th c rap c it t<z. 1 7 1 

The views held by the Ebionites of Christ 
were derived from the Gospel of Matthew, and 
what they learned direct from the Apostles. 
Matthew had been a hearer of Christ — a com- 
panion of the Apostles, and had seen and no 
doubt conversed with Mary. When he wrote 
his Gospel everything was fresh in his mind, and 
there could be no object on his part, in writing 
the life of Jesus, to state falsehoods or omit im- 
portant truths in order to deceive his country- 
men. If what is stated in the two first chapters 
in regard to Christ is true, Matthew would have 
known of them ; and, knowing them, why 
should he omit them in giving an account of his 
life ? It was impossible to pass from the first 
to the second stage of Christianity, as long as 
the Gospel of Matthew was recognized as 'au- 
thority in the church. It stood as a mountain 
in the way, and had to be torn down and made 
way with. The history of the Ebionites, from 
the time they are charged with altering the 
Scriptures, to the time when they disappear 
from history, is one of tyranny and bloody per- 
secution. In the reign of Adrian, what was left 
of them settled in the little town of Pilla, beyond 



172 Therapeutce. 

the Jordan, from whence they spread themselves 
into villages adjacent to Damascus. Some 
traces of them can be discovered as late as the 
fourth century, when they " insensibly melted 
away; either into the church or synagogue." 
(Gibbon, ch. xv. vol. 1. p. 255.) With them 
perished the genuine Gospel of Matthew, the 
only Gospel written by an Apostle. 

Much useless labor has been bestowed on the 
question, whether the genuine Gospel was writ- 
ten in the Hebrew or Greek language. How 
this may be is of little consequence, since the 
genuine writing is no longer in existence. It 
is just as certain that the present version of 
Matthew was written in Greek, as that the 
genuine one was published in the Hebrew 
tongue. To the church of Rome the world is 
indebted for the destruction of the only genuine 
Gospel, and with it the only authentic account 
of Christ. No greater loss could befall the 
world. It was written in the dawn of Christi- 
anity, before corrupt and ambitious men sought 
to make religion a way to power and distinction. 
The truths contained in this Gospel stood in the 
way of a gigantic scheme, conceived by corrupt 



Th e rape utce. 173 

and arrogant men, who saw in a church estab- 
lished by the authority of God, the road to the 
highest point of human power and grandeur. 
They succeeded, but their success, — 

" Brought death into the world and all our woe." 

It was not necessary to reject all of Matthew's 
Gospel, and it is very evident that much was 
retained — such as the discourses of Christ and 
some portions of history. 



1 74 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER XII. 

The character of Irenaeus and probable time of his birth. 
— His partiality for traditions. — The claim of the 
Gnostics, that Christ did not suffer, the origin of 
the fourth Gospel. — Irenaeus the writer. 

The time when Irenaeus was born is variously 
stated. In the introduction to his works against 
heresies, translated by Alexander Roberts, 
D.D., and the Rev. W. H. Rambaut, A. B., is 
the following passage on this subject: "We 
possess a very scanty account of the personal 
history of Irenaeus. It has been generally sup- 
posed he was a native of Smyrna, or some 
neighboring city in Asia Minor. Harvey, how- 
ever, thinks that he was probably born in Syria, 
and removed in boyhood to Smyrna. He him- 
self tells us (lib. iii. sec. 3, 4) that he was in 
early youth acquainted with Polycarp, the illus- 
trious Bishop of that city. A sort of clue is 
thus furnished as to the date of his birth. Dod- 



Th c rape u Ice. 175 

well supposes that he was born as early as A.D. 
97, but this is clearly a mistake, and the general 
date of his birth is somewhere between A.D. 
120 and A.D. 140 (page 18). 

Among the many strong and representative 
men who have impressed their genius on the 
Catholic Church, and given to it its distinctive 
features, none have equalled Irenaeus, the 
Bishop of Lyons. It may in truth be said he 
was the father of the church. He assisted at 
its birth ; took charge of its infancy ; planted 
within its bosom seeds which sprouted and bore 
fruit which has been the source of its nourish- 
ment and strength for seventeen hundred years 
and more. It is enough to say of him, that he 
placed in the heart of the church the seed which 
bore the fruit of the Inquisition. 

From the adoption of Trajan, in A.D. 98 to 
the death of the Antonines, in 180, a period of 
eighty-two years, has been selected by the 
learned author of the "Decline and Fall" as 
the most happy and prosperous period in the 
annals of the human race. (Vol. I. page 47.) 
The vast extent of the Roman Empire was gov- 
erned by mild and just laws, administered^ by 



176 Therapeutce. 

mild and just men. They respected not only 
the forms, but the spirit of a free constitu- 
tion. 

It was the prospect of peace and protection 
held out under this state of things that influ- 
enced the Christians who had survived the cru- 
elties of other reigns to once more return to 
the imperial city. As soon as they were suffi- 
ciently numerous it was natural to adopt some 
form of government ; but what that form was, 
we have no means of knowing, except by the 
dangerous light of tradition. It must be always 
fatal to tradition, where it claims to be import- 
ant, that contemporaneous history says nothing 
about it. It is certain that the uninterrupted 
repose of the church, except in a few cases of 
persecution under Trajan, gave rise to disputes 
among Christians ; for when they were relieved 
from the fears of an outward enemy, they soon 
found cause for quarrel among themselves. On 
the introduction of the three first Gospels, which 
happened during this time, as we shall prove, 
the character of Christ, or rather his mysterious 
birth from the Virgin, gave rise to numberless 
controversies. 



Therapeutcz. 177 

Irenseus was born at the right time to be 
thrust into the midst of them, and as soon as he 
was able to comprehend anything, his ears were 
filled with the disputes of the various contending 
parties. He was born with a love of contention 
planted in him, and had the best school ever de- 
vised to cultivate and strenghten it. The char- 
acter of his mind was bold and daring, and in 
support of the cause he espoused, he had no 
scruples or shame in resorting to falsehood and 
forgery. If the end was good, in his sight, it 
was all the same to him, whether it was reached 
by truth or its opposite. Such, indee^, was the 
prevailing morality of the age. Towards his 
adversaries he was bitter and vindictive, apply- 
ing to them low and vile language, such as 
thieves and robbers. He claimed to look with 
contempt upon those who differed from him, 
and took pleasure in the repeated use of the 
word heretic. Whether he ever saw Polycarp 
or not, and it is no proof he did because he says 
so, he claimed great advantage from it, because, 
as he declares again and again, Polycarp was 
the disciple of the Apostle John. He is only 
one remove from an Apostle, and for what he 



178 Therapeutce. 

states he claimed the weight of Apostolic au- 
thority. 

We say again, it is very doubtful whether he 
ever saw Polycarp ; and it is very certain the 
latter never saw John. The studied dishonesty 
of Irenaeus, in attempting to palm off the Pres- 
byter John for the Apostle, is as dark a piece 
of knavery as is to be found in the history of 
a church which has encouraged such practices 
from the time it claimed to be the depository 
of all the divine wealth left by the Apostles. 

Driven to the wall by the sharp logic and su- 
perior wfedom of that class of Christians who 
were distinguished by the name of Gnostics, his 
devious and ingenious mind undertook to cut 
them off from all claims as members of a Chris- 
tian church, by interposing the doctrine of the 
Apostolic succession. This step once taken in- 
volved the necessity of repeated forgeries and 
frauds. Cowardly Peter is to be changed into 
a hero, — sent to Rome, where death is certain, 
and there die a Christian martyr. John, who 
had not life and force enough in him to rise 
above the masses, and no more knowledge than 
is wanted to dip a net into the sea, is to be con- 



Th e rape ittce.. 179 

verted into a fiery spirit, and put forth a book 
which is to fall like a thunderbolt on the heads 
of the heretics. If anything arises in the course 
of the debates, which, to ordinary men, would 
present difficulties, with Irenseus they were easily 
disposed of by tradition. He had traditions for 
all emergencies, and when his adversaries dared 
dispute him, he stands ready to silence them by 
abuse. He says : "But, again, when we refer 
them to that tradition which originates from the 
Apostles, (and) which is preserved by means of 
the successions of Presbyters in the churches, 
they object to tradition, saying that they them- 
selves are wiser not merely than the Presbyters, 
but even than the Apostles, because they have 
discovered the unadulterated truth. It comes 
to this, therefore, that these men do now con- 
sent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. Such 
are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, 
my very dear friend, endeavoring like slippery 
serpents to escape at all points." (Irenseus, Vol, 
I. book iii. page 260.) 

He brings often and repeated charges against 
his enemies for forgeries, and at the same time 
makes more himself than all of them put to- 



1 80 Therapeutcz. 

gether. In the disputes about the twofold 
nature of Christ as he appears in the Synoptics, 
and as will be fully explained hereafter, the 
Gnostics had the advantage in the argument. 
If Christ the God descended upon the man 
Christ at the baptism in the Jordan, it left him 
at the crucifixion. Then, say the Gnostics, 
there is no atonement, for the Son of God did 
not shed his blood. No other man, in that or 
any other age, could meet the crisis but Irenaeus ; 
and the result is the fourth Gospel. 

The time when this Gospel first appeared as a 
historical fact, has been so thoroughly sifted by 
late writers on that subject, that it will only be 
necessary here to notice some of the prominent 
reasons why its date is fixed after the middle 
of the second century. All allusions, or pre- 
tended allusions, found in the writings of the 
fathers, on inspection will be found to be the 
work of those who have attempted to poison 
the fountains of history. Papias lived near the 
age of John, and if John had written he must 
have known and spoken about it, as he speaks 
of Matthew and Mark ; but he says nothing 
about John or Luke. He was Bishop of Helio- 



Therapezttcz. 1 8 1 

polis A. D. 165, and informs us that it was his 
habit to inquire of those who were the followers 
of the elders, what was said by them : what was 
said by Andrew and Peter or Philip ; what by 
Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of 
the disciples of the Lord. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. , 
book iii. chap. 39.) 

The Apology of Justin to the emperor was 
written some time between the years A. D. 130 
and A. D. 160. The precise time is not known, 
and there is some uncertainty about it. In his 
Apology, Justin makes thirty-five distinct al- 
lusions to Matthew, eighteen to Luke, and five 
to Mark, and if he says anything which points 
to John at all, on examination it will appear that 
the allusions are found elsewhere, in writings 
anterior to Justin. " For Christ said, ' Except 
ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the 
Kingdom of Heaven.' ' This, it is claimed, is 
taken from the fourth Gospel, which must have 
been in existence when Justin wrote. The 
language in the Gospel is, " Jesus answered and 
said unto them, Except a man be born again, 
he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 
3.) This language, imputed to Christ, was 



1 82 Therapeutcz. 

drawn from a common source — from the Gos- 
pel according to the Hebrews, as has been fully 
proven, and so in every other instance where 
the writer seems to allude to the Gospel of 
John. 

The new ideas concerning Christ found in this 
Gospel had not yet dawned upon the world 
when Justin wrote, for on that subject he had 
not got beyond what was contained in the Sy- 
noptics ; or, to speak with greater accuracy, his 
Logos idea was that of Philo, which differed 
from that of John. 

An examination of this subject by the most 
learned and careful writers, proves that there is 
no reliable evidence that the fourth Gospel was 
in existence before A. D. 175, when a direct re- 
ference is made to it in the Clementine homilies, 
a production written in praise of Peter against 
Marcion. The language quoted is .unmistaka- 
bly the language of John. Tatian, who wrote 
between A. D. 160 and A. D. 185, quotes from 
the fourth Gospel : " And this is what was said, 
Darkness does not comprehend the light ; the 
Logos is the light of God." In the nineteenth 
chapter we read: "All things were made by 



Therapeutce. 183 

him, and without him not a thing was made." 
These were quotations from John without his 
being named as the author ; but Theophilus of 
Antioch, who wrote about A. D. 176, especially 
ascribes the Gospel to him. " In the second 
book of this treatise addressed to Antolycus, he 
says : ' Whence the holy Scriptures teach us, 
and all who carried in them a holy spirit, of 
whom John says, In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was God.' " It may be 
claimed as an historic fact, that the fourth Gospel 
was extant in A. D. 175, and that all efforts to 
give it an early date spring from uncertain 
data : obscure allusions and doubtful inferences 
altogether too vague and unreliable to satisfy 
the mind in pursuit of truth. 



184 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

Why Irenaeus wrote the fourth Gospel in the name of 
John. — He shows that the Gospels could not be less 
than four, and proves the doctrine of the incarnation 
by the Old Testament and the Synoptics. — The au- 
thor of the epistles attributed to St. John. 

The zeal of Irenaeus against his adversaries 
had carried him so far in support of the doctrine 
of the incarnation that he ventured upon a new 
Gospel, under the name and authority of an 
Apostle. Without the authority of some one of 
the Apostles to sustain him, of what conse- 
quence would the opinion of one man be, on a 
question which involved the substance and es- 
sence of Christianity ? Nothing would be easier 
than to publish a fourth Gospel in the name of 
some one among the disciples. They were all 
dead a hundred years or more, and the time 
and place of their death no one knew. 

But why did Irenaeus select the name of John ? 
It was his policy to select from among the 
twelve the one who had been the least conspic- 



Titer apeutce. 185 

uous during his life, so that what was said or 
done by him in Judea at one time should not 
conflict with something else claimed to have 
been done at the same time somewhere else. 
The one that said and did nothing in his own 
country might be claimed to have said and done 
a great deal in another. If the proof adduced 
to prove that John, the son of Zebedee, was not 
the John of Ephesus, and that Irenseus was 
engaged in making a false substitute, we have 
gone a great way to show that he himself was 
the author of the fourth Gospel. To be sure, 
John's presence in Asia was required for the 
Apostolic succession ; but the man who brought 
him there for that purpose would be most likely 
to use his name in all other cases when it might 
prove useful. 

The book against Heresies was written be- 
tween A. D. 182 and A. D. 188, so that about 
eight years elapsed between the appearance of 
the Gospel and the one against the heretics. In 
the mean time, no doubt the Gospel had been at- 
tacked from more quarters than one, so that it 
became necessary that the writer should come to 
its defence. The book against Heresies is noth- 



1 86 Therapeutce. 

ing more than a supplement to the Gospel, and 
the writer had in view its defence as much, if 
not more, than he had the heresies of the Gnos- 
tics. 

No better evidence could be given of the vio- 
lence with which the fourth Gospel was attacked, 
when it first appeared, than the character of the 
defence made to sustain it. That it was some- 
thing new in the time of Irenseus is evident from 
the fact that he is called upon and employed his 
genius to defend it. He is not called upon to 
defend either of the other Gospels, because 
whatever doubts there may have been as to 
them, the time for discussion had long passed 
away. But the fourth. Gospel was something 
new ; it had not gone through that fermentation 
in the minds of men which always follows the 
introduction of some new idea or principle, but 
was undergoing that process at the time Ire- 
naeus wrote in its defence. If this Gospel had 
been written by John, it would have been, at the 
time Irenaeus wrote, over one hundred years 
old, and its claims settled years before he was 
born. The very arguments he brings to its 
support are proofs that it is a fraud. He proves 



■ Therapcutce. 187 

that it is genuine because it is a necessity — just 
as pillars are necessary to the support of a por- 
tico. In his mode of argument he proves that 
a falsehood may be exposed by the poverty and 
weakness of the arguments which are relied 
upon for its support. 

Irenseus proves not only that the appearance 
of the fourth Gospel was something new, but 
that the doctrines it contained were unheard of 
before. He says : " It is not possible that the 
Gospels can be either more or fewer in number 
than they are ; for since there are four zones of 
the world in which we live, and four principal 
winds, while the church is scattered throughout 
all the world, and the pillar and ground of the 
church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, it is 
fitting that she should have four pillars, breath- 
ing out immortality on every side, and vivifying 
men afresh." (Book III. chap. 2, sec. 8.) On 
this subject, after drawing many illustrations 
from the Gospels in proof of his position, he 
concludes as follows : "These things being so, 
all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, 
unlearned, and also audacious : those (I mean) 
who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being 



1 88 Therapeutce. 

more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the 
other hand, fewer." (Book III. chap. 2, sec. 9.) 

The fourth Gospel was written with no other 
purpose than to prove the incarnation, and that 
purpose is so persistently kept up in every line 
and verse, from the beginning to the end, that 
if we strike out this, and the miracles which are 
mere supports of the main idea, there is nothing 
left. And so with the third book against He- 
resies — it has but one theme. The writer sets 
out with the Logos idea of this Gospel, which is 
never lost sight of. He finds proof in the tra- 
ditions of the church — in every page of the Old 
Testament — in the Synoptics, as well as in the 
fourth Gospel ; and as we read his misappli- 
cation of words and sentences, we would con- 
clude that he was a lunatic if we did not know he 
was something else. He has no quarrel with the 
three first Gospels, because-he can see nothing 
in them that does not furnish proof of what is 
taught in the fourth ; and in the language which 
makes most against his dogmas, he sees the clear- 
est proof of their truth. 

As an example of his mode of interpretation, 
and turning the plain sense of words from their 



TherapeutcE. 189 

proper meaning to proofs that Christ was God 
in the flesh, we will give his explanation of the 
prophecy of Isaiah, which relates to his birth from 
a virgin: "Therefore, the Lord himself shall 
give you a sign : Behold, a virgin shall conceive 
and bear a son; and ye shall call his name Emman- 
uel. Butter and honey shall he eat : before he 
knows or chooses out things that are evil, He 
shall exchange them for what is good ; for be- 
fore the child knows good or evil, He shall not 
consent to evil, that he may choose that which 
is good." Here follow the comments : " Care- 
fully, then, has the holy Ghost pointed out, by 
what has been said — His birth from a virgin 
and His essence, for he is God (for the name of 
Emmanuel indicates this). And he shows that he 
is a man when he says, ' Butter and honey shall 
he eat ; ' and in that he terms him a child also, 
in saying, ( before he knows good from evil ; ' 
for these are all tokens of a human infant. But 
that he ' will not consent to evil that he may 
choose what is good,' this is proper to God ; 
that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and 
honey, we would understand that He is a mere 
man only — nor on the other hand from the name 



190 Therapeulcz. 

Emmanuel, should suspect him to be Christ 
without flesh." (Book in. ch. 21, sec. 4.) That 
is, Christ is in the flesh, because he is to eat 
butter and honey ; and he is God, because he 
knows how to distinguish between good and 
evil ; and as a consequence, the divine and hu- 
man nature are united in his person, and he is 
the incarnate God. We have shown in another 
part of this work that the prophecy of Isaiah 
had nothing to do with a future Christ, but was 
meant as a measure of time, governed by the 
period of gestation. 

Again : " ' The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit 
Thou at my right hand, until I make thine ene- 
mies Thy footstool.' Here (the Scripture) repre- 
sents to us the Father addressing the Son ; He 
who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, 
and subjected to Him all his enemies. Since, 
therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son 
truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated 
them by the title of Lord. And again, referring 
to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scrip- 
ture says, ' Then the Lord rained upon Sodom 
and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the 
Lord out of heaven. ' For it here points out that 



Th c rapeu tee. 191 

the Son, who had also been talking with Abra- 
ham, had received power to judge the Sodo- 
mites for their wickedness. And this (text fol- 
lowing) does declare the same truth : ' Thy 
throne, O God, is forever and ever ; the sceptre 
of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast 
loved righteousness, and hated iniquity : there- 
fore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.' For-the 
Spirit designates both [of them] by the name of 
God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and 
Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And 
again : ' God stood in the congregation of the 
gods, He judges among the gods.' He (here) 
refers to the Father and the Son, and those who 
have received the adoption ; but these are the 
church. For she is the synagogue of God, which 
God — that is, the Son Himself — has gathered by 
Himself. Of whom He again speaks : ' The 
God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath 
called the earth.' Who is meant by God ? He 
of whom He has said, ' God shall come openly, 
our God, and shall not keep silence ; ' that is, 
the Son, who came manifested to men, who 
said, ' I have openly appeared to those who 
seek me not.'" (Book III. chap. 6, sec. 1.) 



1 9 2 Therapeutce. 

"And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, 
He says, ' I am come down to deliver this peo- 
ple.' For it is He who descended and ascended 
for the salvation of men. Therefore God has 
been declared through the Son, who is in the 
Father, and has the Father in Himself — He 
who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, 
and the Son announcing the Father." (Book 
III. chap. 6, sec. 2.) 

He quotes many passages from the Gospel of 
Matthew to prove his doctrine. li But Mat- 
thew says, that the Magi, coming from the East, 
exclaimed, ' For we have seen his star in the 
east, and are come to worship Him ;' and that, 
having been led by the star into the house of 
Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by those gifts 
which they offered, who it was that was wor- 
shipped : myrrh, because it was He who should 
die and be buried for the mortal human race ; 
gold, because He was a king, ' of whose king- 
dom is no end ;' and frankincense, because He 
was God, who also ' was made known in Judea,' 
and was ' declared to those who sought Him 
not."' (Book III. chap. 9, sec. 2.) "And then, 
(speaking of His) baptism, Matthew says : ' The 



Therapeutce. 193 

heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of 
God, as a dove, coming upon Him : and lo a 
voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved 
Son, in whom I am well pleased.' For Christ 
did not at that descend upon Jesus, neither was 
Christ one and Jesus another : but the Word of 
God — who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of 
heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as I have al- 
ready pointed out, who did also take upon Him 
flcsJi, and was anointed by the Spirit from the 
Father — was made Jesus Christ." (Book III. 
chap. 9, sec. 3.) 

The following is proof derived from Luke. 
"As Zacharias, also, recovering from the state 
of dumbness which he had suffered on account 
of unbelief, having been filled with a new spirit, 
did bless God in a new manner. For all things 
had entered upon a new phase, the Word arrang- 
ing after a new manner the advent in the flesh, 
that He might win back to God that human na- 
ture (Jiominem) which had departed from God." 
(Book in. chap. 10, sec. 2.) 

Many citations of a like nature are taken from 
Luke and Mark to prove the Logos doctrine of 
John's Gospel. Irenaeus even brings John upon 
9 



194 TherapeutcB. 

the stand to prove the doctrine of an incarnate 
Christ ! which John himself was the first to com- 
municate. "John, the disciple of the Lord, 
preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclama- 
tion of the Gospel, to remove that error which 
by Cerinthus had been disseminated among 
men, and a long time previously by those 
termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 
* knowledge ' falsely so called, that he might 
confound them, and persuade them that there is 
but one God, who made all things by His Wordj 
and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, 
but the Father of the Lord another ; and that 
the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but 
the Christ from above another." .... "The 
disciple of the Lord, therefore, desiring to put 
an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the 
rule of truth in the church, that there is one 
Almighty God, who made all things by His 
Word, both visible and invisible ; showing at 
the same time, that by the Word, through whom 
God made the creation, He also bestowed 
salvation on the men included in the crea- 
tion : thus commenced His teaching in the Gos- 
pel : - In the beginning was the Word, and the 



Therapeutcz. 195 

Word was with God, and the Word was God.' " 
(Book III. chap. II, sec. 1.) 

He makes many references to John, and sums 
up his complaints against the Gnostics in the 
following words : " But according to the opinion 
of no one of the heretics was the Word of God 
made flesh. For if any one carefully examines 
the systems of them all, he will find that the 
Word of God is brought in by all of them as 
not having become incarnate {sine came} and 
impassible, as is also the Christ from above." 
(Book III. chap, in, sec. 3.) The writer cites 
many passages from the epistle of Peter, all 
confirming the Logos doctrines of John. . 

The following is the heading of chap. xxii. 
book III. : " Clirist assumed actual flesh, con- 
ceived and born of the Virgin. " In this chapter 
the doctrine of the incarnation is elaborately 
argued, and proof supplied from many quarters ; 
but as there is a great sameness in the argument 
throughout, it would only tire the reader to pur- 
sue the subject any further. • 

The third book against Heresies contains 
twenty-five chapters, which are extended 
through one hundred and seventeen pages, and 



196 Therapeutce. 

throughout there is but one idea presented, and 
the proof offered in its support ; and from the 
first to the last, there is a studied effort to turn 
the plain import of biblical passages from their 
true meaning into the support of the doctrines 
in the fourth Gospel. Thus this father of the 
church, in about seven years after this Gospel 
appeared, came to its defence, and for that pur- 
pose wrote a book, which must have cost him 
much time and study, for in its way it is a work 
of great research, and required an intimate ac- 
quaintance with the Old and New Testaments, 
and the writings of the Gnostics, which were 
numerous in his day. From the zeal which is 
shown throughout, it is evident that the writer 
had some personal interest in the subject, and 
that he was defending his own doctrines, and 
not those of St. John or any one else. 

We do not detect in the work against Here- 
sies the lofty and sublime tone of the Gospel, 
and, from the nature of the subject, it could not 
be expected. He is engaged in an attempt to 
impose on the world, and as what he declares 
to be the work of an Apostle has no foundation 
in truth, nor the doctrines it teaches, he strug- 



Therapcut<z. 197 

gles like a man in a morass, who is compelled to 
seize upon anything to keep him from sinking. 
No doubt he was pressed hard by his adver- 
saries, and he seems in his defence of the fourth 
Gospel like a gored bull with a pack at his front 
and heels. We can detect the keen lance of his 
adversary, piercing him to the quick, in the re- 
peated cry of Antichrist, which is the favorite 
weapon when hard pressed by his enemies. 

As he fights all his battles in the name of St. 
John, hear him exclaim, in the first and sec- 
ond epistles, which he falsely ascribes to the 
Apostle : " Little children, it is the last time : 
and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, 
even now are there many Antichrists ; whereby 
we know that it is the last time. Who is a liar 
but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? 
He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the 
Son." (1 John ii. 18, 22.) "Hereby know 
ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that confesseth 
that Jesus Christ is come in thejlesk, is of God : 
and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God. And 
this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have 
heard that it should come ; and even now 



198 T her ap eutcs. 

already is it in the world." (1 John iv. 2, 3.) 
'■' For many deceivers are entered into the 
world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is 
come in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and an 
Antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose 
not those things which we have wrought, but 
that we receive a full reward. Whosoever 
transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine 
of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in 
the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father 
and the Son. If there come any unto you, and 
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into 
your house, neither bid him God speed : for he 
that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his 
evil deeds." (2 John 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.) 

The spirit that dictated the foregoing denun- 
ciations of those who disbelieved the dogma of 
Christ incarnate, also gave birth to what fol- 
lows : " But again, those who assert that he 
was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, 
remaining in the bondage of the old disobe- 
dience, are in a state of death ; having been not 
as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor 
receiving liberty through the Son, as He does 
himself declare : ' If the Son shall make you 



Therapeutce. 199 

free, ye shall be free indeed.' But, being igno- 
rant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, 
they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal 
life ; and not receiving the incorruptible Word, 
they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to 
death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To 
whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of 
grace : ' I said, ye are all the sons of the Highest, 
and gods; but ye shall die like men.' He 
speaks undoubtedly these words to those who 
have not received the gift of adoption, but who 
despise the incarnation of the pure generation 
of the Word of God, defraud human nature of 
promotion into God, and prove themselves un- 
grateful to the Word of God, who became flesh 
for them ." (Book iii. chap. 19, sec. 1.) 



200 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER XIV. ■ 

Four distinct eras in Christianity from Paul to the Coun- 
cil of Nice. — The epistles of Paul and the works of 
the fathers changed to suit each era. — The dishon- 
esty of the times. 

FROM the time Paul commenced his labors, to 
the latter part of the second century, we can 
trace three eras or periods in the state and char- 
acter of Christianity, as marked and distinct as 
the various strata of the earth which indicate 
the different ages of their formation. First, the 
Pauline ; second, the Philo-Alexandrian, which 
includes the time of the three first Gospels ; 
third, the Incarnation, which includes the fourth 
Gospel. As we approach the end of the third 
century, we may include a fourth period — that 
of the Trinity. 

We have stated elsewhere, that the distin- 
guishing feature between the Logos of Philo 
and the Christ of Paul was, that the former was 
coexistent in point of time with the Creator or 
Father, while in case of the latter, there was a 



Therapeutce. 201 

time he did not exist. There was still another 
difference : the Logos was begotten in heaven, 
but Christ was born on the earth, of earthly pa- 
rents. Through the influence of the Alexandrian 
Jews, who had been converted to Christianity by 
the preaching of Paul, the Christ of Paul was 
made to give way, in time, to the Logos of Philo. 
This change can be traced in the forgeries which 
are found interlarded through the epistles of 
Paul, and the writings of the early fathers. We 
trace the gradual and stealthy departure from 
the first to the second stages of Christianity 
in the use of terms in Paul's epistles which 
were employed among the Gnostics and others 
in the early part of the second century. The 
epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians have 
been pronounced by able critics to be spurious, 
because of some verses which have an Alexan- 
drian look ; when it is easy to discover that these 
verses are mere insertions into the original text. 
The term pleroma, or fulness, was a favorite 
phrase among the Gnostics, and now we find it 
scattered here and there through the epistles : 
" For it pleased the Father, that in him should 

all fulness dwell." {Col. i. 19.) "For in him 
9* 



202 Therapeutce. 

dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
{Col. ii. 9.) " And hath put all things under 
his feet, and gave him to be the head of all 
things to the church, which is his body, the 
fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph. i. 
22, 23.) "And to know the love of Christ, 
which passeth all knowledge, that ye might be 
filled with all the fulness of God." (Eph. iii. 19.) 
The preexistence of Christ, and his rank as 
God, is now openly avowed. " For by him were 
all things created, that are in heaven, and that 
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or 
powers : all things were created by him, and for 
him. And he is before all things, and by him 
all things consist." (Col. i. 16, 17.) Here the 
Christ of Paul disappears, like the great Apos- 
tle himself. The works of the fathers are now 
mutilated by the same ruthless hand, to main- 
tain the new phase which Christianity is forced 
to assume. " Ignatius, who is called Theo- 
phorus to the church which is at Ephesus in 
Asia, deservedly happy, being blessed through 
the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and 
predestinated before the world began, that it 



Therapeutce. 203 

should be always unto an enduring and un- 
changeable glory ; being united and chosen, 
through actual suffering, according to the will 
of the Father and Jesus Christ our God, all hap- 
piness by Jesus Christ and his undehled grace." 
(Epistle to Eptsiceris, sec. 1. 17.) The balance 
of this section, which will be cited in a subse- 
quent page, was added in the third or fourth cen- 
tury, when Christianity put on its fourth phase. 
" For this cause they were persecuted also, 
being inspired by his grace, fully to convince the 
unbelievers that there is one God, who hath man- 
ifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is 
his eternal Word, not coming forth from silence, 
who in all things was well pleased in him that 
sent him." * (Sec. 8.) 

* The word silence is a word which grew in use among the 
Gnostics long after the time of Ignatius, and affords unmistaka- 
ble proof of the fraudulent interpolation. Valentinianus, a Gnos- 
tic of the second century, held that there is a certain Dyad (two- 
fold being), who is inexpressible by name, of whom one part 
should be called Anhetus, unspeakable, and the other Silence. 
The word, in the connection in which it is found in the passage 
from Ignatius, speaking about what related to a later age, has 
been the occasion of much discussion : some contending that it 
has reference to the Silence of Valentinianus, which proves the 



204 Therapeutce. 

Such passages as we have cited, and others of 
a like nature which might be cited, have led 
critics to the conclusion that the writings which 
contain them are forgeries ; but if examined in 
connection with the texts, it will be found that 
they are interpolations, forced into the places 
they fill. As the writings of Paul now stand, 
they present Christ in two distinct characters or 
aspects : his own as the Son of Man, from which 
he never wavered ; and the other that of Philo. 
All through his epistles we find passages which 
inculcate doctrines with which he combated dur- 
ing his whole life. All that is essential to, or 
that is embraced in, the writings of Philo, as to 
the nature of the Logos, may be found in the 
epistles of Paul. We will give a few examples 
which we gather from the work of Jacob Bryant, 
and found among the notes of Adam Clarke in 
his Commentaries on St. John. 

Philo. " First begotten of God." 

COLOSSIANS i. 15. " Who is the image of the 
invisible God, the first-born of every creature." 

passage spurious ; others, that it relates to the erroneous opinions 
of heretics anterior to Valentinianus. What heretics ! (See 
Chevalier's Apostolical Gospels, note 6.) 



Therapeutce. 205 

Hebrews i. 6. " And again, when he bring- 
eth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, 
And let all the angels of God worship him." 
PHILO. " By whom the world was created" 
Hebrews i. 2. " Hath in these last days 
spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath ap- 
pointed heir of all things, by whom also he 
made the worlds." 

1 Corinthians viii. 6. " But to us there 
is but one God, the Father, of whom are all 
things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus 
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" 

Philo. " The most ancient of God's works, 
and before all tilings" 

2 TIMOTHY i. 9. "Who hath saved us, and 
called us with an holy calling, not according to 
our works, but according to his own purpose 
and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus 
before the world began." 

PHILO. " Esteemed the same as God" 
PHILIPPIANS ii. 6. " Who, being in the form 

of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 

God." 

Philo. "He unites, supports, preserves, and 

perfects the zvorld" 



206 Therapeutcz. 

COLOSS. i. 17. " And he is before all things, 
and by him all things consist." 

Philo. " Free from all taint of sin, volun- 
tary* and involuntary ." 

Hebrews vii. 26. " For such an high priest 
became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, 
separate from sinners, and made higher than 
the heavens." 

Piilo. " The Logos the foundation of wis- 
dom.'''' 

1 Corinthians i. 24. "But unto them which 
are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the 
power of God, and the wisdom of God." 

COLOSS. ii. 3. " In whom are hid all the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 

Philo. " Men being freed by the Logos from 
all corruption, shall be entitled to immortality ." 

1 Corinthians xv. 52, 53. " In a moment, 
in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump : 
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall 
be raised incorruptible, and we shall be chang- 
ed." "For this corruptible must put on in- 
corruption, and this mortal must put on immor- 
tality." 

Inconsistency cannot be claimed to be one of 



Therapeutcz. 207 

the faults of Paul ; but if we place these passa- 
ges by the side of those in which he declares, in 
unmistakable language, his belief in the nature 
of Christ, we must either admit inconsistency 
or fraud. The influence of Paul had lost much 
of its force before his death in A.D. 66 ; and 
when Hadrian assumed the government of the 
empire, A.D. 117, the Pauline era had nearly 
ceased. Speaking of the great Apostle, Renan 
says : " After his disappearance from the scene 
of his apostolic struggles, we shall find him soon 
forgotten. His death was probably regarded as 
the death of an agitator. The second century 
scarcely speaks of him, and apparently endea- 
vors to systematically blot out his memory. 
His epistles are then slightly read, and only re- 
garded as authority by rather a slender group." 
{Life of Paul, page 327.) 

But the same author tells us, on the same 
page, what history confirms, that Paul, in the 
third century, wonderfully rises in the estima- 
tion of the church, and resumes the place from 
which he had been deposed. There is a good 
and obvious reason for the change. During this 
interval between the fall and rise of his influence, 



208 Therapeutce. 

his epistles had been subjected to the most glar- 
ing forgeries, in order to make them conform to 
the Philo-Alexandrian ideas which in the mean 
time prevailed. 

It is to be remarked at this place, that the 
Logos idea of Philo encountered difficulties, 
when applied to the person of Jesus. It could 
not be denied that he was the son of Mary ; 
but it might be, that he was not the son of Jo- 
seph. He is therefore born not of man. The 
influence of a divine energy is substituted. No 
sooner is this new feature introduced into the 
second stage of Christianity, than new forgeries 
commence, and are found scattered through the 
works of the fathers. " And the princes of the 
world know not the virginity of Mary, and him 
who was born of her, and the death of the Lord : 
three mysteries noised abroad, yet done by God 
in silence." " Where is the wise and where is 
the disputer ? Where is the boasting of those 
who are called men of understanding ? For our 
God, Jesus Christ, was born in the womb of 
Mary, according to the dispensation of God." 
{Ignatius to Eph. sees. 18, 19.) 

The foregoing are mere specimens. Christ is 



Therapeutcz. 209 

now the Son of God ; but for a time he is all 
humanity. He grows from infancy to manhood, 
and manifests in himself the appetites and in- 
firmities which belong to the flesh. His mind 
develops early ; but, as with other mortals, it 
grew and expanded as he advanced in years. 
But the time came when " the heavens were 
opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God 
descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." 
(Matt. iii. 16.) He was there proclaimed by a 
voice from heaven, to be the Son of God, 
Here is something Paul never heard of. The 
new Logos of the gospel, like the Logos of 
Philo, was without beginning, from everlasting ; 
but from this point they diverge. 

The Logos of the Alexandrian was not an hy- 
postasis, or a person, but a divine emanation or 
spirit ; of a nature unconceivable, which hovered 
over the earth, but never touched it. The new 
Christ descended from heaven as a spirit, took 
up its mysterious abode in the human form, 
where it dwelt until its ministry was complete, 
when, with the body which contained it, it en- 
countered death — went down into the grave — - 
but on the third day broke the chains of death, 



210 Therapeutce. 

and triumphantly ascended into heaven, from 
whence it came. 

The tendency of the minds of men at that day 
towards the discussions of metaphysical and un- 
intelligible subjects, soon led to endless disputes, 
growing out of this new feature of the Christian 
faith. How this mysterious union of God and 
man could and did exist, and when and how 
it was dissolved, were questions which caused 
much angry feeling and acrimonious discussion 
ajmong Christians, which continued through the 
second, and even to the fourth century, when, 
according to the learned author of the " Decline 
and Fall," they died out by " the prevalence of 
more fashionable controversies, and by the su- 
perior ascendant of the reigning power." {Gib- 
bon, vol. I. p. 257.) 

The idle and profitless disputes of the second 
era of Christianity were forced, at a later day, 
to give way to those of the third. Cerinthus, 
and other Gnostics, maintained that the Son of 
God descended on the day of baptism in the 
form of a dove, and remained in its human re- 
ceptacle until the time of the crucifixion, when 
it took its flight, leaving to the human form all 



Therapeutce. 211 

the agonies and sufferings of death. If this 
were so, there is no atonement : the Son of 
God has not offered himself as a sacrifice. The 
Gnostics had the advantage of consistency. If 
Christ was a creature, like other men, when the 
Spirit descended upon him, and existed apart 
from the flesh, then death could only reach the 
body, and when that was put to death, or about 
to be, and the Spirit lost its tabernacle or abi- 
ding-place, it must again return to the celestial 
abode. 

The perplexities and interminable disputes, 
caused by such unintelligible subjects, at last 
led to the third period in the Christian religion : 
the doctrine of the incarnation : ■ ' The Word 
was made flesh and dwelt among us, who was 
not born of blood, nor of the will of man, but of 
God." {John i. 13, 14.) God took upon him- 
self the form of man, and was God in man. 
The Logos of Philo has become an hypostasis, 
and walks upon the ^arth. The war with the 
Gnostics has changed ground. The Son of God 
did not come down and take up his abode in the 
mortal form of Christ, but was Jesus himself, 
and when he came to suffer death there was no 



212 

separation of divine and human natures, but the 
real Son of God shed his blood, suffered, and 
died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of our 
race. 

The paternal solicitude of Irenseus in support 
of this new phase of Christianity is conspicu- 
ously displayed in the third book of his work 
against Heresies. " But, according to these 
men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor 
Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was pro- 
duced from [the joint contributions of] all [the 
^Eons] . For they will have it that the Word 
and Christ never came into this world ; that 
the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor 
stiffered, but that he descended like a dove 
upon the dispensational Jesus ; and that, as 
soon as He had declared the unknown Father, 
He did again ascend into the Pleroma. 
Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all 
out as false witnesses, says : ' And the Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us.' ' (Chap, 
xi. sec. 3.) "As it has been clearly demon- 
strated that the Word, who existed in the be- 
ginning with God, by whom all things were 
made, who was also always present with man- 



Titer apeutce. 2 1 3 

kind, was in these last days, according to the 
time appointed by the Father, united to His own 
workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man 
liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objec- 
tion is set aside of those who say, ' If our Lord 
was born at that time, Christ had therefore no 
previous existence.' For I have shown that 
the Son of God did not then begin to exist, 
being with the Father from the beginning ; but 
when He became incarnate, and was made man, 
He commenced afresh the long line of human 
beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehen- 
sive manner, with salvation ; so that what we 
had lost in Adam — namely, to be according to 
the image and likeness of God — that we might 
recover in Christ Jesus." (Chap, xviii. sec. 1.) 
The forgers are again at their work. The an- 
cient fathers must be made to subscribe to the 
new creed. " For some there are who are wont 
to carry about the name of Christ in deceitful- 
ness, but do things unworthy of God, whom you 
must avoid as ye would wild beasts. For they 
are raving dogs, which bite secretly, of whom 
you must be aware, as men hardly to be cured. 
There is one physician, both carnal and spirit- 



214 Therapeutcz. 

ual, create and increate, God manifest in the 
flesh ; both of Mary and of God ; first capable 
of suffering — then liable to suffer no more." 
(Ignatius to Eph. sec. 7.) ''For whosoever con- 
fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh 
is Antichrist ; and whosoever confesseth not his 
sufferings upon the cross is from the devil. And 
whosoever perverts the oracles of God, he is the 
first-born of Satan." {Poly carp to Philippians, 
sec. 7.) 

The above citations are a few of many others 
of a like character scattered through the works 
of the fathers, inserted long after their death, 
and evidently intended to combat the idea of 
Cerinthus and others, that Christ did not suffer 
on the cross, and so it could not be claimed that 
by his death he made an atonement for the sins 
of man. Both of these fathers lived near the 
time of Paul, and believed the doctrines he 
preached : " Ye are the passage of those that 
are killed for God ; who have been instructed in 
the mysteries of the gospel with Paul, who was 
sanctified and bore testimony even unto death, 
and is deservedly most happy ; at whose feet I 
would that I might be found when I shall have 



Therapeutcg. 2 1 5 

attained unto God, who through all his epistles 
makes mention of you in Christ." {Ignatius to 
the Ephesians, sec. 12.) " For neither can I, 
nor any other such as I am, come up to the wis- 
dom of the blessed and renowned Paul, who be- 
ing amongst you, in the presence of those who 
then lived, taught with exactness and soundness 
the word of truth ; who in his absence also 
wrote an epistle to you, unto which, if you dili- 
gently look, you maybe able to be edified in the 
faith delivered unto you, which is the mother of 
us all." {Poly carp to the Philippians, sec. 3.) 

Paul taught that Christ was born of woman, 
under the law ; and Ignatius, that he was " truly 
of the race of David, according to the flesh." 
{Letter to the Eph., sec. 1.) 

The letters of Polycarp and Ignatius seemed 
a kind of a free commons where forgeries might 
be committed by all ; and they have been so 
often used for this purpose, in order to secure 
the authority of their names to the doctrines of 
the day, that there is very little of the originals 
left. All parties were engaged in the practice ; 
and each charged his adversary with doing the 
very thing that he was doing himself. 



2 1 6 Therapeutcz. 

As we read whole pages in Irenseus, charging 
his adversaries with forgeries and false interpo- 
lations, we smile at the impudence and audacity 
of the man, who has done more to pollute the 
pages of history than any other, and whose 
foot-prints we can follow through the whole cen- 
tury, like the slime of a serpent. 

Speaking of the forgeries of this century, 
Casaubon says: "And in the last place, it 
mightily affects me to see how many there were 
in the earliest times of the church, who consid- 
ered it a capital exploit to lend to heavenly 
truth the help of their own inventions, in order 
that the new doctrine might be more readily 
allowed by the wise among the Gentiles. These 
officious lies, they were wont to say, were de- 
vised for a good end ; from which source, be- 
yond question, sprang nearly innumerable 
books, which that and the following age saw 
published by those who were far from being 
bad men (for we are not speaking of the books 
of the heretics), under the name of the Lord 
Jesus Christ and of the Apostles, and of other 
saints." {Casaubon, quoted by Lardner.) 
Lardner is forced to admit " that Christians of 



Therapeu Ice. 217 

all sorts were guilty of this fraud — indeed, we 
may say it was one great fault of the times." 
(Vol. IV. page 54.) 

In an age where falsehood was esteemed a 
merit, the truth cannot be expected. Before we 
close what we have to say on the third period 
of Christianity, we cannot fail to notice what a 
wide gulf has grown up between the religious 
faith of Paul and his followers, and those who 
gave their assent to the doctrines of the fourth 
Gospel. But, wide as is the gulf, those who call 
themselves Christians can stand on the opposite 
banks and clasp hands as believers in a common 
faith. Why is this ? Skilful artisans, in the 
second century and subsequent ages, have been 
busy in bridging over this vast abyss, by add- 
ing to and taking away from what Paul taught, 
until to cross over is neither difficult nor dan- 
gerous. 



218 Therapeutcz. 



CHAPTER XV. 

The Trinity, or fottrth period of Christianity. 

If we may judge of the opposition made to 
the doctrines of the fourth Gospel by the vehe- 
mence and bad feeling with which they were de- 
fended, we conclude that if they Avere not suc- 
cessfully refuted, they did not escape just and 
severe criticism. The sudden change from the 
Logos of Philo to the hypostasis of John — from 
Christ a spirit who had descended from Hea- 
ven and taken up a temporary abode in the hu- 
man form, and a Christ who was born a God, 
lived and remained such through death and the 
resurrection — was too great a change to be sud- 
denly taken, without provoking the sneers and 
animadversions of the enemies of the new faith, 
who were on the lookout to expose its weak- 
nesses, and ridicule its inconsistencies. What 
gave force and point to their attacks was, that 
the change from the Logos of the Synoptics to 
that of the fourth Gospel was one of necessity, 



TherapeutcB. 2 1 9 

forced upon Christians by the tactics of the 
Gnostics, in order to maintain a principle which 
lay at the foundation of their religion : that is, 
the atonement. 

In the war waged between them and their 
enemies, Christians found it a source of great 
relief and satisfaction, to learn that the doc- 
trines of John's Gospel, wdiich were announced 
in the first verses of the first chapter, were in 
harmony with the theology of Plato. Whatever 
inconsistencies might be imputed to them on 
account of the change of their ideas as to the 
nature of Christ, their present views were the 
same as those held by the great philosopher of 
Greece, whose wisdom had entitled him to be 
called Plato the Divine. The study of the works 
of the Athenian by Christians of this period 
was the natural result of this feeling, and we 
discover a constant increase of this admiration 
until his ascendency is complete, and the nature 
of the Godhead determined by his genius. The 
followers of Plato were no less gratified to find 
that the doctrines of the fourth Gospel were in 
harmony with the school of their great teacher ; 
so much so that it removed the prejudice, and 



220 Therapeutcz. 

reduced the distance which formerly separated 
them from the Christians.* 

According to John, the Word existed with 
the Father from the beginning — was equal to 
the Father, and was the Creator of all things. 
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were 
co-equal and co-eternal. With Plato, the Fa- 
ther, or First Cause, the Logos, and Spirit of 
the Universe, existed from the beginning, and 
were endowed with co-ordinate powers ; but, 
according to him, all divine natures flow from 
the One, or First Cause, as light flows from the 
sun, and are bound in unity, and are one ; so 
the three persons in the Godhead of Plato are 
one, and constitute a triad in unity. 

The theology of the fourth Gospel approached 
so near to that of Plato, that it was natural that 
one should insensibly run into the other, and 
was what might have been expected. The 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are equal, as the 
First Cause, the Logos, and the Spirit of the 



* Some proofs of the respect which the Christians enter- 
tained for the person and doctrines of Plato, may be found in 
De la Mot he le Vager, torn. v. p. 135, and Basnage, torn. 
IV. p. 29-79. Decline and Fall, vol. I. p. 440, note 29. 



Titer apeutcz. 221 

Universe are equal. As the two proceed from 
the One, or First Cause, with Plato, and are 
united, so the two proceed from the Father, and 
are one, and in both cases form a trinity in unity. 

The circle is now complete. Paul was de- 
throned by the Alexandrian Philo, and his 
Christology in turn is overthrown by the mixed 
theology of John and Plato. W& can readily 
detect the violence done the works of the fathers, 
in order to give the authority of their names to 
this new phase of Christianity. " Wherefore 
come all ye together as to one temple of God — 
as to one altar — as to one Jesus Christ — who 
proceeds from One Father, and exists in one arid 
is returned to One.'" [Ignatius to Maguesians, 
sec. 7.) This language expresses the Platonic 
idea in all its completeness. It could hardly be 
expected that Christianity could take upon itself 
this new phase without opening the door for 
new causes for dispute, as will always be the 
case when men presume to reason on spiritual 
generation, and from negative ideas attempt to 
draw positive conclusions. 

Sabellius, of Egypt, undertook to find a mid- 
dle ground, and while he admitted the triad in 



222 Therapeutcs. 

unity, he claimed that there was but one person 
in the Godhead, and that the Word and Spirit 
are only virtues or emanations of the Deity. 
But his doctrine conceded too much to the theo- 
logy of the Greek to suit the followers of Arius, 
and not enough to satisfy the orthodox ; and so, 
after a vain struggle, Sabellius and his doctrines 
were swallowed up and lost sight of in the 
strife created by the opposing views which sud- 
denly sprang up in the church at Alexandria. 
We give the origin of the dispute in the words 
of Socrates, a writer of the fifth century. 

" After Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, had suf- 
fered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achilles 
was installed in the Episcopal office, whom Alex- 
ander succeeded, during the period of peace 
above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise 
of his functions for the instruction and govern- 
ment of the church, attemped one day, in the 
presence of the presbytery and the rest of his 
clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophi- 
cal minuteness, that great theological mystery, 
the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one 
of the Presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose 
name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable 



T her ape u tee. 223 

logical acumen, imagining that the Bishop en- 
tertained the same view of this subject as Sabel- 
lius the Libyan, controverted his statements 
with excessive pertinacity, advancing another 
error which was directly opposed indeed to that 
which he supposed himself called upon to refute. 
' If,' said he, ' the Father begat the Son, he 
that was begotten had a beginning of existence : 
and from this it is evident, that there was a 
time when the Son was not in being. It there- 
fore necessarily follows, that he had his exist- 
ence from nothing.' ' ; {Ecclesiastical History, 
book i. chap. 5.) 

From a little spark, continues the writer, a 
large fire was kindled, which ran throughout all 
Egypt, Libya, the upper Thebes, and finally 
through Asia and Europe. After disturbing 
the peace of the world for fourteen hundred 
years, the dispute which commenced at Alex- 
andria remains unsettled to this day. 

We now approach a new era. Up to this 
time the religion of a people had no connection 
with the powers of the State. Constantine is 
the first to set an example. Indebted to the 
Christians for their assistance in the civil war 



224 Therapcutcz. 

between himself and Licinius, under the pretext 
of preserving the peace of the church, he wrote 
an epistle to Alexander and Arius, admonishing 
them to forbear and cease to quarrel about 
things they can neither explain or comprehend. 
Thus commenced a connection between church 
and State which has proved so ruinous to the 
cause of true religion, and the peace of the 
church ever since. This interference was con- 
tinued by Constantine throughout his reign, and 
at the time of his death the affairs of the church 
and State were so interwoven that it became 
difficult, at times, to distinguish between the of- 
fice of a Bishop and the powers of the Emperor. 
The spirit of faction in the church proved su- 
perior to the authority of Constantine, and in 
order to restore peace, he was forced to call an 
assembly of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons 
from every part of the Christian world. What 
was meant to restore harmony, only furnished 
fresh subjects for dispute, so that the progress of 
mankind has rather been retarded than assisted 
by the piety and wisdom of the Nicene fathers. 
The attempt to fix a standard of faith by the 
decrees of councils has proven to be the great- 



Tkerapeutce. 225 

est folly in which men were ever engaged, as 
it has been the source of the greatest misery 
and suffering ; and proves, by the evils which 
flow from it, that all such efforts are vain and 
presumptuous. As well undertake to fix a 
standard for the fine arts, and determine by a 
decree the combination of colors, and how the 
lights and shades shall be mingled in making a 
picture to please the eye, and satisfy the taste 
of all. 

That which followed what was done at the 
Council of Nice, shows of what little value are 
the decrees of such bodies in establishing or in 
assisting the cause of truth. Council followed 
council, without arriving any nearer to the set- 
tlement of the dispute. In the fourth century 
alone, there were forty-five councils ; of these, 
thirteen decided against Arius, fifteen in his 
favor, and seventeen for the Semiarians. (Dra- 
per's Intellectual Development, page 222.) The 
divisions and quarrels among Christians sapped 
the strength, and finally led to the disruption of 
the Roman empire, and prepared the way for 
the armies of Persia, and the conquest of Ma- 
homet. 

10* 



226 Therapeutcz. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

The Catholic Epistles. 

The Catholic Epistles, as they are called, if 
genuine, should be regarded as of the highest 
authority in everything which relates to the 
early age of Christianity. That some are the 
real productions of an Apostle, some so in part, 
and others wholly spurious, is susceptible of the 
most satisfactory proof. The epistle of James, 
and the first of Peter, if we except certain parts 
of the latter, have strong claims to be treated as 
the works of the writers whose names they bear ; 
while the second of Peter, the first, second, and 
third of John, and the one ascribed to Jude, carry 
on their face unmistakable marks of forgery. 

The writer of the first epistle of Peter was a 
Jew, not a Greek, and it was addressed to 
Jewish converts. His mind dwells on events in 
Jewish history, for he speaks of Sarah, Abra- 
ham, and Moses, and refers to the traditions ot 



T her ape u tee. 227 

the Jewish rabbins and elders. (1 Pet. i. 18.) 
Although addressed to strangers, the epistle was 
meant for Jews, who, through persecution in 
Judea, fled into foreign countries ; for to Peter 
was committed the ministry of the circumcision. 
[Gal. ii. 9.) Besides, the persons to whom 
Peter writes are styled li a chosen generation , a 
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar 
people" (1 Peter ii. 9), which can only apply to 
the Jewish nation. " And ye shall be unto me 
a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." 
{Exodus xix. 6.) 

The letter shows that Peter was still a Jew, 
and altogether proves that he had not changed 
his views on circumcision. The vision on the 
house-top had not yet taken place. But there 
is a spirit of pure morality running through the 
greater part of the epistle, which brings it near 
the time of Christ, and makes it out of place in 
a later period of Christianity. It is conclusive 
proof of its canonical authority, that it is inserted 
in the Syriac version of the New Testament, 
executed at the clo'se of the first or early in the 
second century ; and it is equally conclusive 
against the second of Peter, that it is not in-" 



228 Therapeu tcz. 

eluded in the same work. Hermas has not 
fewer than seven allusions to the first epistle, 
which is sufficient to prove its antiquity. 

This epistle was also written before the order 
of Bishops was recognized in the church, and 
Christians had not departed from their first 
simple ideas of ecclesiastical government. Peter 
himself claimed to be nothing more than 
elder. " The elders which are among you I 
exhort, who am also an elder" (i Peter v. I.) 

The place where the letter bears date cor- 
responds with our ideas of the movements of 
Peter, for his labors, whatever they may have 
been, were confined to Asia, not far beyond 
the confines of Judea. 

But if the first of Peter is in the main genuine, 
it did not escape corruption at the hands of the 
poisoners of truth in the second century. " Who 
verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of 
the world, but was manifest in these last times 
for you." (i Peter i. 20.) "Forasmuch then 
as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm 
yourselves likewise with the same mind : for he 
that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from 
sin." (1 Peter iv. 1.) When these verses were 



Titer apeutce. 229 

written, Christianity had passed into its third 
period, for here is announced a Christ who was 
co-eternal with the Father, and was incarnate. 

Most of the first chapter, if not all, is un- 
doubtedly spurious. The boastful spirit with 
which it commences ; the doctrinal announce- 
ments, and the tone in wnich they are delivered 
are entirely different from that shown in the 
following chapters. It is written as something 
to be used against an adversary, and-; like all 
forgeries inserted into genuine writings for such 
purposes, much is crowded into a small space. 

In "this chapter is declared the preexistence 
of Christ, or the Alexandrian Logos ; the resur- 
rection ; foreknowledge and election, and sancti- 
fication— -all disputed points in theology, which 
required the authority of an Apostle to settle : 
but neither of which had anything to do with 
Clirist or the religion he taught. It will be 
noticed, that the crucifixion is mentioned twice : 
once in connection with the twentieth verse, 
which asserts the eternity of the Logos, and the 
other in close connection with the second verse, 
which holds to the doctrine of election. As 
the preexistence of Christ was no part of Chris- 



230 Therapeutcz. 

tianity when Peter wrote, which was, according 
to Lardner and others, in A.D. 64, but belongs 
to a later period ; and as the subject mentioned 
in the twentieth and twenty-first verses is the 
same, and cannot be separated, it follows that 
both are spurious. 

So we would say of the mention of the re- 
surrection in the third verse. It is connected 
with a doctrinal point which had no existence 
in Peter's time, and, if it had, was in dispute, 
and was inserted into this chapter to give it 
Apostolic authority. The mention of the re- 
surrection in the twenty-first verse of the third 
chapter holds also a suspicious connection with 
the doctrine of baptism. 

The true commencement of this epistle will 
be found in the first verse of the second chapter. 
Here we discover quite a different spirit. Here 
commences the plain, simple and pure doctrines 
of the Christian faith, which in the end will se- 
cure the victory. Teter and James are each 
examples to prove that a mind wedded to a 
single idea, which had for ages entered into 
the religion of a people, may be contracted and 
fettered by it, and yet be free to expand under 



Therapeutce. 231 

the influence of the true genius of Christianity, 
and become liberal on other subjects. Neither 
Peter nor James could shake off the Jewish 
notion of circumcision, for it began with the 
father of that people by the command of God, 
and was to be binding on his descendants to the 
end of time. With them, like all the laws of 
God, the law of circumcision was unchangeable. 
But notwithstanding all this, they each had heart 
enough to take in the great truths of Christiani- 
ty as declared by the lips of its founder. These 
men, who were slaves to one idea, who dogged 
the footsteps of Paul because he taught the 
doctrine of the uncircumcision, could yet teach 
men the duty to " love thy neighbor as thy- 
self." {James ii. 8.) 

No two writings can be more unlike than the 
two epistles ascribed to Peter. The second is 
filled with the boasting and controversial bitter- 
ness of the times of the Gnostics. In the primi- 
tive churches the authenticity of this epistle was 
a subject of doubt. It was not, as stated, includ- 
ed in the Syriac version of the New Testament, 
which cannot be accounted for, except that it 
was not in existence when it was compiled, at 



232 Titer apeutcz. 

the beginning of the second century. But the 
internal evidence furnished by the epistle itself 
is sufficient to prove that it never was written 
by Peter. 

The following contains the spirit of Irenaeus 
when he speaks of his intimacy with Polycarp : 
" And this voice which came from heaven we 
heard, when we were with him in the holy 
mount." (2 Peter i. 18.) " But there were false 
prophets also among the people, even as there 
shall be false teachers among you, who privily 
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying 
the Lord that bought them , and bring upon them- 
selves swift destruction." (2 Peter \i. 1.) "And 
through covetousness shall they with feigned 
words make merchandise of you : whose judg- 
ment now of a long time lingereth not, and their 
damnation slumbereth not." (Chap. ii. 3.) 
" But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be 
taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things 
that they understand not; and shall utterly per- 
ish in their own corruption. . . . Spots they are 
and blemishes, sporting themselves with their 
own deceivings while they feast with you." 
(Chap. ii. 12, 13.) " For it had been better for 



Therapeutcz. 233 

them not to have known the way of righteous- 
ness, than, after they have known it, to turn 
from the holy commandment delivered unto 
them. But it is happened unto them according 
to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his 
own vomit again ; and, The sow that was washed 
to her wallowing in the mire." (Chap. ii. 21, 
22.) The letter is filled with all the venom and 
bitterness of the Gnostic quarrels. 

We have already said enough to prove the 
two epistles of John spurious, and who it was 
that wrote them. "That which was from the 
beginning, which we have heard, which we 
have seen with our eyes, which we have looked 
upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word 
of life ; for the life was manifested, and we 
have seen it, and shew unto you that eternal 
life which was with the Father, and was mani- 
fested unto us." (1 John i. 1, 2.) Irenseus, 
in a letter to Florinus, says, in speaking of Poly- 
carp : " Well, therefore, could I describe the 
very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and 
taught ; his going out and coming in ; the whole 
tenor of his life ; his personal appearance ; the 
discourses which he made to the people. How 



234 TherapeutcB. 

would he speak of the conversations which he 
had held with John and others who had seen the 
Lo?'d. How did he make mention of their 
words, and whatsoever he had heard from them 
respecting the Lord." All this he can say with- 
out a blush ; although Polycarp never saw John, 
and in all his letters, which are numerous, he 
never claims he did. He saw Paul, but not 
John. The manner in which John is made to 
speak of Christ is much the same as Irenaeus 
makes mention of Polycarp. Effect is meant to 
be given to what was stated in both cases, by 
dwelling on details. 

After having qualified himself as witness in 
this boastful spirit, he proceeds to deal out 
blows on the heads of his adversaries: " He 
that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his 
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not 
in him." (i John ii. 4.) "Who is a liar but 
he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? He is 
Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the 
Son." (Chap. ii. 22.) " Every spirit that 
confesseth that Jesus' Christ is come in the flesh, 
is of God : and every spirit that confesseth 
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not 



Therapeittce. 235 

of God." (Chap. iv. 2, 3.) Such is the spirit 
throughout the two epistles ascribed to John. 
The Apostle is forced on the stage to make war 
on the Gnostics, and maintain the dogma of 
the incarnation in the language of a blackguard. 

The epistle of Jude is nothing but a bolt 
hurled at the heads of the Gnostics, from the 
hand of one who assumed the name of an 
Apostle. 

What is said of the first epistle of Peter 
may be said of that which is attributed to 
James. It was written by a Jew, for he says : 
"Was not Abraham our father justified by 
works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon 
the altar? " {James ii. 21.) The text shows it 
was written during the Pauline period of Chris- 
tianity, and was the work of James, or some 
one else, in reply to Paul, who claimed that 
faith without works were sufficient for salva- 
tion. It makes no allusion to the disputed 
dogmas of the second century, and like the first 
of Peter, breathes a spirit of Christianity which 
approached near the time of Christ. The fre- 
quent allusions to it by Hermas are in favor of 
an early date : it is included in the Syriac ver- 



236 Therapeu l<z. 

sion, which leaves its antiquity without ques- 
tion. 

We cannot fail to be struck with the fact, 
that Peter and James, both Jews, who were the 
disciples and companions of Christ, are free 
from doctrinal dogmas, and preach doctrines 
like those of their Great Teacher, full of char- 
ity, kindness, and love. It is only when we 
come to the writings and forgeries of the 
Greek that we encounter subtle and unintelli- 
gible dogmas, which involved men in endless 
disputes, excited the most violent passions, and 
terminated in wars and disturbances of all 
kind. 

What is remarkable, too, neither of these 
Jewish writers makes any reference to the Gos- 
pels, nor to the miracles or prodigies spoken of 
in them ; nor does either make mention of the 
miraculous conception and birth of Christ. All 
these things sprang from the Greeks. To be 
sure, Paul preached the resurrection ; but he 
believed because he saw Christ after the cruci- 
fixion, in a vision. James is silent on the 
greatest event since the creation, of which, 
if true, he was a witness. The hand of the 



Therapeutcz. 237 

spoiler failed to leave his mark on the pages of 
James the son of Alpheus. Addressed to the 
"Twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," 
the epistle which bears his name had obtained 
too wide a circulation, and was in the hands of 
too many, before the age of forgery com- 
menced, to be an easy subject for mutilation. 
It was written in Judea, and addressed to the 
whole Jewish people. It was for them alone, 
and in their special custody, and if it comes 
down to us without a spot or stain, as it came 
from the pen of the writer, it is because it was 
too well guarded and protected by its friends to 
admit of corruption. Why did James with- 
hold from the twelve tribes the great fact that 
Christ had risen from the dead ? He speaks of 
his cruel death ; why not mention the still more 
important fact, that he rose superior to the 
grave, and put death under his feet? "Ye 
have condemned and killed the just ; and he 
doth not resist you." {James v. 6.) 



238 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

No Christians in Rome from A. D. 66 to A. D. 117. 

FROM the death of Paul in A. D. 66, as we 
have before stated, to the reign of Adrian in A. D. 
117, Rome was without a Christian population. 
Such is history when properly rendered. The 
course of Nero filled them with horror, and at 
the time of his death Rome was deserted by 
them. After he ceased to reign there followed 
the civil wars, the most fearful in the annals of 
Rome. Galba, after all obstacles in his way to 
power had been removed by the sword, entered 
the city through a scene of blood, and men ex- 
pected nothing less than the renewal of all the 
cruelties of Nero's reign." {Annals of Tacitus, 
Appendix to book xvi.) Then commenced the 
civil war between Vespasian and Vitellius, which 
was the cause of untold misery to the Roman 
people. The city of Rome was burned to the 



Therapeidce. 339 

ground. " From the foundation of the city to 
that hour, the Roman people had felt no cala- 
mity so deplorable, no disgrace so humiliating." 
{Tacitus, book iii. sec. 22.) 

The condition of the times is truly depicted 
in the concise and eloquent language of the au- 
thor of the "Decline and Fall : " " During four- 
score years (excepting only the short and doubt- 
ful respite by Vespasian's reign) Rome groaned 
beneath an unrelenting tyranny which extermi- 
nated the ancient families of the Republic, and 
was fatal to almost every virtue and every talent 
that arose during that unhappy period." (Vol. 
I. page 47-) 

Obscene rites alleged to be practised by Chris- 
tians ; their indifference towards all who differed 
from them in their ideas on religion ; their iso- 
lation from the rest of mankind, had excited the 
hatred of the Pagan world ; so that in large cities, 
where the population was lawless and difficult 
to restrain, they were liable to be attacked and 
torn to pieces without notice and without provo- 
cation. All the evils which befell the empire 
were referred to the Christians, and were re- 
garded as proof that the Roman people had, by 



240 Therapeutce. 

tolerating them, incurred the anger of heaven. 
Their presence was considered a curse upon the 
earth. Tertullian exclaims : "If the Tiber rises 
against the walls of the city, or the Nile does 
not overflow its banks ; if there is a drought, 
or earthquake, or famine, or pestilence, the cry 
at once is, Take the Christians to the Lion." 
{Apology, chap, xl.) 

It was this state of feeling that made it dan- 
gerous, especially during the civil war, for Chris- 
tians to remain in Rome. Domitian, the son of 
Vespasian, commenced his reign in A. D. 81, 
and was assassinated in A. D. 96. That we 
have no account of any Christians being put to 
death under his reign is proof that they had not 
returned from the provinces. It is the fashion 
with historians to allege great cruelty towards 
Christians during this reign. We have searched 
for the evidence, but have failed to find it. Su- 
etonius lived during his reign ; had personal 
knowledge of many things he describes ; gives 
the names of numerous victims and their offen- 
ces ; mentions the cruelties inflicted on the 
Jews ; but does not even make use of the word 
Christian, or give the name of any one who suf- 



Therapeutcz. 241 

fered on account of his religion. The cruelty of 
Domitian spent itself on those who were guilty 
of political offences; but the interested and par- 
tisan traditions of the second century delight to 
make him a monster who took pleasure in shed- 
ding Christian blood. He did not fail to perse- 
cute Christians because he had no inclination to 
do so — for he punished what he called impiety to 
the gods with severity — but because there was 
none in Rome during his reign to persecute.* 

Trajan succeeded to the empire in A. D. 98. 
During his reign, which continued to A. D. 117, 
what proof there is on the subject tends to show 
that Christians had not yet returned to the capi- 
tal. So little did Trajan know about them, 
that Pliny, in writing to him for advice as to how 
he should deal with them, is compelled to de- 
scribe to him their doctrines, practices and forms 
of worship. Had there been any in Rome at 
the time, there would have been no necessity for 
this ; and besides, had there been any there, the 
mode of treatment of them by the emperor 
would afford a precedent for Pliny without call- 
ing for special instructions. But we can affirm 

* See Appendix D. 



242 Therapeutcz. 

with confidence that no Christian dared live in 
Rome during this reign, which continued for 
nineteen years, for the reason that to be one 
during this time was a crime punishable by death. 

In answer to Pliny's letter, in speaking of 
Christians, Trajan writes : " If they be brought 
before you, and are convicted, let them be ca- 
pitally punished, yet with this restriction, that 
if any one will renounce Christianity and evince 
his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however 
suspected he may be in the past, he shall obtain 
pardon for the future on his repentance." 

It is not at all astonishing that Pliny, in writ- 
ing Trajan about his mode of treating Christians, 
had to tell him who they were, and describe the 
way in which they conducted themselves. From 
A.D. 64, when Tacitus speaks of them in con- 
nection with the great fire, and their sufferings at 
the time, no historian makes any mention of 
them, as dwellers in Rome, to the end of the 
century. The obscure allusion to them by Ju- 
venal and Martial, in a satirical vein, relates 
solely to their conduct under torture, inflicted 
by Nero at the time Rome was burned. 

Suetonius, who was secretary to the Empe- 



Therapeutce. 243 

ror Adrian, wrote the life and times of the Em- 
perors from Augustus to Domitian ; and if we 
except the doubtful allusion to them in the reign 
of Claudius, he does not even make use of the 
word Christian, or speak of anything in con- 
nection with them. During the time of which 
we have been speaking, lived and wrote Quin- 
tilian, Juvenal, Statius, and Martial. 



244 TherapeutcB. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

The office of Bishop foreign to churches established by- 
Paul, which were too poor and too few in number to 
support the order. — Third chapter of the second 
Epistle to Timothy, and the one to Titus, forgeries. 
— The writings of the Fathers corrupted. 

Elders or Seniors, in ancient Jewish polity, 
were persons who were selected on account of 
their age and experiejice, to administer justice 
among the people, — who also held the first rank 
in the synagogue as presidents. The office of the 
Elder, with the Jews, commenced with Moses, 
and was continued until after the days of the 
Apostles. They were selected with reference to 
age and knowledge, without regard to anything 
else. It is evident that the Apostles did not de- 
part from the Jewish form of church government, 
but adopted and continued it during their lives. 
The epistle of James was written in A.D. 61. 
At that time the church was governed by El- 
ders. " Is any sick among you ? let him call 
for the Elders of the church ; and let them 



Tkerdpeutce. 245 

pray over him, anointing him with oil in the 
name of the Lord." [James v. 14.) In A.D. 
64, Peter was an Elder, for that is the date of 
the first epistle which bears his name. "The 
Elders which are among you I exhort, who am 
also an Elder.''' (1 Peter vi. 1.) 

We hear nothing of the office of Bishop un- 
til we enter the second age of Christianity, 
when the Therapeutse had taken possession of 
the church, got the upper-hand of Paul and his 
followers, and introduced their government of 
the Episcopacy. Did Paul institute a govern- 
ment for the churches established by him, dif- 
ferent from that of Peter and James ? 

Paul had no place for the office of Bishop in 
the churches which he founded and organized. 
In all cases except one he addresses his epistles 
to the church, and those that are sanctified in 
Christ. The letter to the Romans is addressed, 
"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God." 
The first to the Corinthians, " Unto the church 
of God which is at Corinth ; " second Corinthi- 
ans, " Unto the church of God which is at Co- 
rinth, with all the saints which are in all 
Achaia;" Galatians, "And all the brethren 



246 Therapeutcz. 

which are with me, unto the churches of Gala- 
tia;" Ephesians, "To the saints which are at 
Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus ; " 
Thessalonians, " Unto the church of the Thes- 
salonians, which is in God." Only in one in- 
stance does Paul make any other or different 
address. His epistle to the Philippians is ad- 
dressed, " To all the saints in Christ Jesus 
which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and 
Deacons:" a simple spurious addition to the 
forms of address in all other cases. 

The letter to the Philippians was written in 
A. D. 62 or A. D. 63, when Paul was in Rome. 
The epistle to the Thessalonians was written in 
A. D. 52, while he was in Corinth. For ten 
years Paul had been writing letters to the dif- 
ferent churches, and in his epistle to the Philip- 
pians he uses the word Bishop for the first time. 
In this epistle the name of the Bishop is not 
given, which is significant. The contents of this 
letter show that there was no Bishop at Philippi 
at the time it was written. 

When Paul was a prisoner in Rome the first 
time, the church at that place sent Epaphrodi- 
tus to visit him, with means to supply his wants. 



Therapeu tcz. 247 

Thankful for the remembrance in which he was 
held, he sent the letter spoken of, and as some 
return for their kindness, he promised to send 
to them Timothy. " But I trust in the Lord 
Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that 
I also may be of good comfort, when I know 
your state." {Phil. ii. 19.) " Him therefore I 
hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see 
how it will go with me." (Chap. ii. 23.) If 
there was a Bishop in the church at Philippi, 
why not mention his name ? or why send 
Timothy to them at all to supply their spiritual 
wants ? 

How many members composed the church at 
Philippi to require the services of a Bishop and 
deacons ? Paul had been there once, and per- 
haps the second time. He was called there for 
the first time by a vision ; but he soon got into 
trouble, and even into prison, and remained but 
a short time. The author of the life of Paul 
(Renan) claims that he went into Macedonia 
the second time, and remained about six 
months, from June to November (page 261). 
The same writer says: "A country was re- 
puted evangelized when the name of Jesus was 



248 TherapeutcE. 

pronounced there and half a score of persons 
had been converted. A church frequently con- 
tained no more than twelve or fifteen members. 
Probably all the converts of St. Paul in Asia 
Minor, Macedonia, and Greece did not exceed 
one thousand." Of this number, in a note to 
the twenty-second chapter, he assigns two 
hundred to the churches in Macedonia. As 
Paul had numerous churches in Macedonia, we 
are safe to assign to the church at Philippi the 
one-half of the whole number of his followers in 
that country. The first converts to Christianity 
were from the poorer class of people, and were 
not able to even support Paul, so that he had to 
maintain himself by manual labor as a tent- 
maker. The question may well be asked, what 
necessity was there for a Bishop and deacons at 
Philippi, and how were they to be supported ? 

Lucian, in his dialogue entitled Philopatris, 
while he no doubt exaggerates the poverty and 
mean appearance of Paul's followers, he at the 
same time throws much light on their true con- 
dition. He speaks of them as " a set of tatter- 
demalions, almost naked, with fierce looks." 
(Taylor's Diegesis, 376.) The truth is, all the 



Therapeutcz. 249 

churches which owe their origin to Paul were 
so small and so poor, that their government was 
of the most simple and economical kind. The 
first epistle of Paul to Timothy is intended to 
settle the position and claims of a Bishop in the 
church, and give the authority of Paul to the 
order. It is by such obvious forgeries as this, 
and others we will produce, that we are able to 
form any idea of the violence of the quarrels 
among the early Christians, as to the rights or 
standing of a Bishop in the church. 

What arouses suspicion, and at last convinces 
us, that the third chapter of the first epistle to 
Timothy is a forgery, is that there is too much 
on the subject of Bishops from Paul all at once. 
If the episcopate form of government under- 
laid or was at the bottom of Paul's mode of 
government, it surely would have come to the 
surface or made itself known before it suddenly 
starts up in the first to Timothy ; for he had 
been engaged in building up churches for at 
least fifteen years before that. 

It is characteristic of the forgeries of the 

second century, when they are inserted into 

genuine writings, to make their appearance in 
11* 



250 Therapeutce. 

the form of boulders, very much condensed, but 
out of place. There is nothing diffusible about 
them, and we never suspect their presence 
until we stumble upon or over them. The way 
the subject of Bishops is introduced, at once 
creates suspicion. "This is a true saying. If 
a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a 
good thing." It is intended to convey the idea 
in the start, that the office had been long in 
existence, and that the profits were such as to 
excite the cupidity of men. The office of 
Bishop, in the time of Paul, even if such an 
office had any existence, was not, as we have 
shown, a good thing, but the opposite ; but in 
the second century, when the forgery was per- 
petrated, it was. Good critics have pronounced 
the whole of the first of Timothy a forgery. 
The weight of the evidence is in favor of this 
belief. As to the third chapter, there can be no 
question. 

The effort to make it appear that Paul recog- 
nized the episcopate form of church government 
is repeated in the epistle to Titus. It is to be 
remarked that this effort is only made in the 
last epistles written by him. The first of Timothy 



Therapeutcu. 251 

was written in A. D. 64; that to Titus in A. D. 65. 
All the epistles between A. D. 52 and A. D. 62, 
have nothing to say on the subject of Bishops. 
Those written between these two periods, at 
Paul's death had obtained a wide circulation 
among all the churches of Asia and Europe, 
which made it impossible for those who were 
engaged in corrupting his writings to make 
changes that could be easily detected and ex- 
posed. As long as he lived it could not be done. 
But the reverse is true of those which were 
written just before his death. Besides, the The- 
rapeutse element did not begin to work until A. 
D. 57, and had not grown bold and strong 
enough to venture on the corruptions of Paul's 
writings until some time after his death. 

The inference that is meant to be drawn from 
parts of his epistle is that Titus was a Bishop when 
Paul left him in Crete. Compared with other coun- 
tries where Paul had churches, Crete was com- 
paratively insignificant, and if Paul's converts 
in Europe and Asia did not exceed one thousand, 
and we have no reason to think they did, what 
portion of this number can we assign to the church 
at Crete, if there was one there at all? Renan 



252 TherapeutcE. 

says, " A church frequently contained no more 
than twelve or fifteen members." {Life of 
Christ, page 326.) Twelve or fifteen Christians 
and not more, if that many, composed the 
church at Crete. Did that number require the 
presence of a Bishop and elders ? 

The real truth of the matter is easily disco- 
vered. Paul, in A. D. 64, made a visit to all the 
churches in company with Titus and others, and 
stopped at Crete, which was the first time he 
w r as ever on the island, so far as we have any 
proof on the subject. After making some few 
converts, he left Titus to continue the work 
(Titus i. 5), while he proceeded west in the di- 
rection of Macedonia. The epistle to Titus was 
written from Nicopolis in the summer or fall of 
A. D. 64, and says : " For this cause left I thee 
in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the 
things that are wanting, and ordain elders in 
every city, as I had appointed thee." (Chap. i. 
5.) That is, to organize churches and appoint 
the elders. 

Had this subject about church organization 
ceased at this point, there would not be much to 
complain of, although the word "ordain" had 



Therapeutce, 253 

no place in the vocabulary of Paul. He or- 
dained no one, after any form or ceremony, nor 
did he pretend to impart to his followers any 
but his own spirit and power. 

In the seventh verse he proceeds to address 
Titus as Bishop, and to give him advice. Titus 
was no Bishop when Paul left him in Crete, nor 
did he hold any office, but was simply a fellow- 
laborer, like Luke, Mark, and Timothy. The 
men of the second century would have it under- 
stood that Paul was surrounded by a galaxy of 
Bishops. " For a bishop must be blameless, as 
the steward of God ; not self-willed, not soon 
angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given 
to filthy lucre." [Titus i. 7.) Was it necessary 
to give such advice to '* Titus, mine own son 
after the common faith ? " The forgery is a 
clumsy one because it is out of place, and evi- 
dently inserted for a purpose. Titus was di- 
rected by Paul to leave Crete and meet him in 
Nicopolis, where he meant to spend the winter. 

As has been stated, the only means we have 
of judging of the resistance made to the claims 
of the Bishop is from the extravagance of these 
demands, and the violence with which they are 



254 TherapeutcB. 

asserted. "Wherefore it becomes you to run 
together, according to the will of your Bishop, 
even as also ye do. For your renowned Pres- 
byter, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the 
Bishop as the strings are to the harp." (Igna- 
tius to the Eph., sec. 4.) " Let no man deceive 
himself : Except a man be within the altar he 
is deprived of the bread of life." (lb., sec. 5.) 
" I exhort you, that you study to do all things 
in a divine concord, your Bishop presiding in 
the place of God." (Ignathts to Magnesians, sec. 
6.) " It is therefore necessary that you do 
nothing without your Bishop, even as ye are 
wont. In like manner, let all reverence the 
Deacons as Jesus Christ, and the Bishops as 
the Father; without these there is no church. 
Wherefore guard yourselves against such per- 
sons : And that ye will do, if ye are not puffed 
up, but continue inseparable from Jesus Christ 
our God ; and from your Bishop and from the 
commands of the Apostles. He that is within 
the altar is pure. But he that is without, is 
not pure. That is, he that doeth anything 
without the Bishop and the Presbyters and Dea- 
cons is not pure in conscience." (Ignatius to 



T her ape u tee. 255 

Trallians, sees. 2, 3, 7.) "But the Spirit 
spake, saying in this wise : Do nothing without 
the Bishop ; But God forgives all that repent, if 
they return to the unity of God and to the coun- 
cil of the bishop" {Ignatius to Phil., sec. 8.) 
" See that ye all follow your Bishop as Jesus 
Christ the Father." (Ignatius to Smyrnceus, 
sec. 8.) "It is good to have due regard both 
to God and to the Bishop." (lb., sec. 9.) 

These passages prove, that there was a party 
in the church that was opposed to the order of 
Bishops, introduced by the Therapeutse, and 
that party no doubt were the followers of Paul. 
To silence them, the Epistles of Paul and the 
writings of the fathers were filled with forgeries 
and alterations so extravagant and obvious that 
they have defeated the object in view. 

It is hardly necessary to ask the question, 
where it was the Therapeutse form of govern- 
ment, by Bishops, was first organized. Alex- 
andria seems to have been the common mother 
of all that is new in religion. It is here where 
have sprung up, in all ages, those subtle ques- 
tions which have led the minds of men from 
sense and reason to pursue mischievous phan- 



256 Therapeiitce. 

toms. We infer from the writings of Eusebius, 
and from other sources, that the Therapeutae 
Christians in Alexandria were numerous at an 
early date. The letter of Adrian from Alexan- 
dria, in A. D. 134, is the first notice we have of a 
church with a Bishop at its head. It was this 
letter that led the author of the "Decline and 
Fall," after a careful survey of the subject, with 
a penetration that nothing escaped, and an in- 
dustry which left no ground unexplored, to con- 
clude that the first regular Christian church gov- 
ernment was instituted at Alexandria. If Chris- 
tian churches are not indebted to the Therapeu- 
tae for their form of church government, from 
what source do they derive it ? Not from the 
Jews ; not from Paul ; not from the Apostles. 



Therapeutcz. 257 



CHAPTER XIX. 

Linus never Bishop of Rome. — Clement, third Bishop, 
and his successors to the time of Anicetus, myths. — 
Chronology of Eusebius exposed, also that of Ire- 
naeus. 

At what time was Linus, said to be the suc- 
cessor of Peter, made Bishop of Rome ? The 
last trace we have of him, he was with Paul, in 
Rome, in the fall of A. D. 65. After this we 
know nothing of him, except from vague and 
more than doubtful tradition. According to 
Irenaeus, it was when Peter and Paul were in 
Rome together, after they had laid the founda- 
tion of the church at that place. Paul went to 
Rome for the first time in A. D. 61, where he 
remained to the spring of A. D. 63. We have 
shown that during this time Peter was not there. 
Paul remained absent until the summer or fall of 
A. D. 65, and soon after his return was commit- 
ted to prison. In A. D. 64, Peter was in Baby- 
lon, two thousand miles away. As Irenseus is 



258 Titer apeutce. 

the founder of the story, and the only authority 
in subsequent ages, when it was that Linus was 
appointed over the church of Rome as the suc- 
cessor of Peter, it devolves on those who pre- 
tend to believe him to show when it was that 
Peter and Paul were together in Rome, laying 
the foundation of a church, or anything else. 
This can never be done ; and if not, it destroys 
the first link in the Apostolic chain, and what is 
left is worthless. 

The importance attached to Clement as the 
third Bishop of Rome will be a sufficient excuse 
for a critical examination, as to who he was, 
when he lived, and the position he occupied. 
The authority that Clement was Bishop of Rome 
is the same we have in any other case for links 
to keep up the Apostolic succession ; for Ire- 
naeus not only supplies an Apostle from whom 
to start, but also the intermediate links in the 
chain, to the time of authentic history. In this 
he finds great assistance in his ready invention 
of traditions, which we are required to believe 
without question, for fear of incurring the sin of 
unbelief, and subject ourselves to being called 
slippery eels, trying to evade the truth. The 



Therapeutcz. 259 

following is his language : " The blessed Apos- 
tles, then, having founded and built up the 
church, committed into the hands of Linus the 
office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul 
makes mention in the epistles to Timothy. To 
him succeeded Anacletus ; and after him, in 
the third place from the Apostles, Clement was 
allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had 
seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conver- 
sant with them, might be said to have the 
preaching of the Apostles still echoing (in his 
ears), and their traditions before his eyes." 
(Irenceus, book iii. chap. 3, sec. 3.) 

It may be affirmed with confidence, that we 
know nothing of the person who is called Clem- 
ent, and made third Bishop in the Church of 
Rome. If he had held the office at the time it 
is claimed he did — the latter part of the first 
century — it would have been in the power of 
Irenaeus to give us a full account of him : when 
he took the office, and when he died ; for if he 
had been a real character, there must have been 
persons living, at the time Irenaeus flourished, 
who had seen and known him, so that the histo- 
rian had ample material to inform posterity of 



260 Therapeutce. 

everything which related to the life of the third 
Bishop. But he gives no information — does not 
give a date — or the source from which he de- 
rives his authority, but has left the world to 
grope in darkness ever since. We have his 
word, and that is all. 

It is impossible that a person should fill an 
office of importance in the church in Rome, at 
the end of the first century, without leaving 
some tangible evidence that he had once an ex- 
istence ; but Clement, like a shadow, passes 
over the earth, without a single mark of any 
kind to prove he ever lived. There is a dispute, 
as to when and how he died. Some say he was 
banished into the Crimea by Trajan, and there 
suffered martyrdom by drowning. Others that 
he died a peaceful death, A.D. ioo. There is 
nothing known about him, and for that reason, 
everything which concerns him is variously sta- 
ted. This could not be, had he been a real 
character in history. It is only fictions of the 
brain that elude you, when you attempt to 
grasp them. 

We are not told when he first filled the office 
which it is claimed he did. Eusebius states, 



Therapeutce. 261 

that he succeeded Anacletus in the twelfth year 
of Domitian's reign, A. D. 93. Cave, in his life 
of Clement, from the best light he could get, 
adopted the conclusion of Dodwell, that he 
became bishop about A. D. 64 or A. D. 65. 
The reason of this confusion is readily ex- 
plained. The Clement referred to by Paul has 
been made to fill the place of an imaginary 
Clement at the end of the century — a person 
who only existed in the brain of Irenaeus ; and 
in trying to fix time and dates, the real and 
imaginary Clement create confusion. Irenaeus 
has purposely left the subject in darkness, as he 
does the time when Peter went to Rome, and 
John to Asia. Dates are always fatal to false- 
hodd and misrepresentations. The real Cle- 
ment is referred to by Paul in the fourth chap- 
ter and third verse of the epistle to the Philip- 
pians, which was written from Rome in A. D. 
.. 63. This is the only notice that is taken of 
him, and he is made the third Bishop of Rome 
by Irenaeus, simply because his name is found 
among others in one of Paul's epistles, as it was 
in the case of Linus, who was made first. 

Who was it that wrote the letter to the Co- 



262 Therapeutce. 

rinthians ascribed to Clement ? We cannot tell 
who wrote all, but we can who did write a part. 
The address of this letter by a person who, it is 
claimed, was at the time a Bishop, to a church 
outside the city, which, it was said, appealed to 
him for advice, is the first bold attempt, on the 
part of the See of Rome, to enforce an acknow- 
ledgment of the supremacy of the Papal 
authority. Can any reason be given why the 
church at Corinth, during the first century, 
should appeal to Rome for advice on any sub- 
ject ? The church at Corinth was the oldest, 
and after Paul's death knew of no higher author- 
ity than itself. There are no signs of a church 
to which an appeal could be made to the end of 
the century, except those manufactured by the 
aid of tradition, which do not deserve to be 
mentioned when men mean to be serious. 

This letter, like everything else suspicious, 
has no date. We can fix the date with almost 
entire certainty to every letter written by Paul, 
and there is no reason why a date should not be 
given to the one to the Corinthians, except that 
there is something wrong about it, and a date 
would expose the fraud. Archbishop Wake 



Th e rapen tee. 263 

supposes it to have been written soon after the 
termination of the persecution under Nero, be- 
tween the years A. D. 64 and A. D. 70, Lard- 
ner refers it to the year A. D. 96. (Chevallier 
H. E. Introduction.) The writer of this epistle 
was careful to leave no internal evidence by 
which its date could be determined, and what 
there is of that character is inserted apparently 
to mislead, or afford grounds for dispute. 

We have a right to demand the letter of the 
Corinthians to Clement, to which his is the 
answer ; for it is more probable that a letter re- 
ceived at Rome of so much importance would 
be preserved, than one sent away into a distant 
country. We not only have not the letter, but 
we cannot learn what it was about. There 
can be no doubt of the early date of the letter, 
for it makes no allusion to the Gospels, and was 
written during the lives of the first fathers of the 
church, such as Polycarp and Ignatius. It has but 
little of the odor of the second century about it. 

From all the light we can collect on this per- 
plexing question, we would say -that the letter 
itself was written by some of the early fathers, 
and made afterwards, with some alterations, to 



264 Therapeuta. 

conform to the purposes for which it was wanted — 
that is, the entering wedge of Papal supremacy. 
It is evident that Irenaeus is attempting to 
make the Clement of Paul take the place of a 
creature of his own creation, and thus impose 
upon the world, as he did in the case of John 
and Mark. 

In manipulating the letter he provided for 
Peter in Rome and Paul in the Occident. In 
naming the successors to Clement, Irenseus says : 
"To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. 
Alexander followed Evaristus ; then, sixth from 
the Apostles, Sixtus w appointed ; after him 
Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred ; then 
Hyginus ; after him, Pius ; then after him, 
Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, 
Eleutherus does now, in the twelfth place from 
the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the epis- 
copate. In this order, and by this succession, 
the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, 
and the preaching of the truth, have come down 
to us. And this is most abundant proof that 
there is one and the same vivifying faith, which 
has been preserved in the church from the 
Apostles until now, and handed down in truth" 



Therapeutce. 265 

Including Linus and Anacletus, here are twelve 
traditional bishops in succession. Why tradi- 
tional ? For the reason that most of them, and 
all, except the three last, are not real or his- 
torical characters. Commencing with Nero, 
about the time when the tradition commences, 
and coming down to, and including Commodus, 
cotemporary with Eleutherus, there are thirteen 
emperors, one more than the number of Bishops 
in the same time, and history gives the time 
when each was born, when each became a ruler, 
when each ceased to reign, the manner of his 
death, and the qualities for which each was dis- 
tinguished. It was an age of chronology, when 
dates of important events were as carefully pre- 
served as in our own day ; and yet Irenaeus has 
failed to give a single date in connection with 
his twelve traditional Bishops. We do not even 
know there was such a tradition, except that 
he says so, and we are very certain that there 
was no church in Rome to preserve it, if there 
was. 

This vagueness and uncertainty — where cer- 
tainty, if the statements were true, could be 

easily attained, but easily exposed, if false — 
12 



266 Therapeuta. 

must have been used with great effect, by the 
philosophers of the third century, against Chris- 
tians, for it forced Eusebius to fix up dates for 
each of these traditional bishops. He makes 
each appear in order, like so many shadows, 
and he reminds us, as he goes through the roll, 
of the showman in a panorama, who explains 
each figure as it takes its place on the canvas. 
What Irenseus dared not do in the second, 
Eusebius dared do in the fourth century. On 
such subjects, his whole history proves, he had 
no scruples ; and he admits, indirectly, that he 
has related whatever might redound to the 
glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the 
disgrace of religion. 

It will be noticed that he gives no authority 
for his dates, for the reason that he has none. 
Irenseus could find none in the second century. 
It is not probable Eusebius would be any better 
supplied in the fourth. It is evident he went 
to work and divided the whole time in which it 
is claimed the twelve Bishops lived, between 
them, so as to make each appear at a given 
time, marked by the accession of the emperors 
who reigned during the traditional era. We 



TherapeutcB. 267 

will give his statements as he makes them him- 
self:— 

' ' After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, 
he was succeeded by his son Titus ; in the sec- 
ond year of whose reign, Linus, Bishop of the 
church at Rome, who had held the office about 
twelve years, transferred it to Anacletus." 
{Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 13.) "In the twelfth 
year of the same reign, after Anacletus had 
been Bishop of Rome twelve years, he was suc- 
ceeded by Clement." {lb., book iii. chap. 4.) 
" In the third year of the above-mentioned 
reign (Trajan's), Clement, Bishop of Rome, 
committed the episcopal charge to Euaristus, 
and departed this life, after superintending of 
the divine word nine years." {lb., book iii. 
chap. 34.) " About the twelfth year of the reign 
of Trajan, Euaristus had completed the eighth 
year as Bishop of Rome, and was succeeded in 
his episcopal office by Alexander." {lb., book 
iv. chap. 1.) "In the third year of the same 
reign (Adrian's), Alexander, Bishop of Rome, 
died, having completed the tenth year of his 
ministration. Xystus was his successor." {lb., 
book iv. chap. 4.) "And Adrian being now in 



268 Therapeutce. 

the twelfth year of his reign, Xystus, who had 
now completed the tenth year of his episcopate, 
was succeeded by Telesphorus." (15., book iv. 
chap. 5-) "The Emperor Adrian, having finished 
his mortal career after the twenty- first year of his 
reign, is succeeded by Antoninus, called Pius, 
in the government of the Romans. In the first 
year of this reign, and in the eleventh year of his 
episcopate, Telesphorus departed this life, and 
was succeeded in charge of the Roman church 
byHyginus." (lb., book iv. chap, io.) " Hy- 
ginus dying after the fourth year of his office, 
Pius received the episcopate." (lb., book iv. 
chap, ii.) " Pius dying at Rome in the fifteenth 
year of his episcopate, the church was governed 
byAnicetus." (lb., book iv. chap, n.) " It was 
in the eighth year of the above-mentioned reign, 
to wit, that of Verus, that Anicetus, who held 
the episcopate of Rome for eleven years, was 
succeeded by Soter." (lb., book iv. chap. 19.) 
" Soter, Bishop of Rome, died after having held 
the episcopate eight years. He was succeeded 
by Eleutherus." (lb., book v. Introduction.) 
" In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, 
Eleutherus, who had held the episcopate thir- 



Therapeutce. 



269 
{lb., 



teen years, was succeeded by Victor, 
book v. chap. 22.) 

We give a list of the emperors, and the time 
of accession of each to the government of the 
Empire, commencing with Vespasian, coming 
down to the time of Commodus : 



Vespasian began to 


reign July 1st, A.D 


69 


Titus 


k 


June 24th, " 


79 


Domitian " 


a 


Sept. 13th, " 


81 


Nerva " 


u 


Sept. 1 8th, " 


96 


Trajan " 


a 


Jan. 27th, " 


98 


Adrian " 


it 


Aug. 10th, [' 


117 


Antoninus Pius " 


a 


July 10th, " 


138 


Antoninus Verus " 


« 


March 7th, li 


161 


Commodus " 


a 


March 17th," 


180 



The following tabular statement shows the 
year in which each Bishop took the office, ac- 
cording to the statement of Eusebius, and the 
number of years which each held it : — 
Linus, A.D. 69, held office 12 years 



Anacletus, 


- 81, 


12 


Clement, 


" 91, 


9 


Euaristus, 


" 101, " 


8 


Alexander, 


" no, 


10 


Xystus, 


" 120, " 


10 



270 


Therapeutcz. 




Telesphorus, 


a.d. 129, 


held office 


I T years 


Hyginus, 


" 138, 


n 


4 " 


Pius, 


" 142, 


a 


15 " 


Anicetus, 


" i57, 


a 


11 " 


Soter, 


" 169, 


a 


8 '< 


Eleutherius, 


" i77, 


a 


13 " 



From A.D. 69, when Linus became Bishop, to 
the tenth year of Commodus, when Victor suc- 
ceeded Eleutherus, the true time is one hun- 
dred and twenty-one years. The time, taking 
the period assigned to each traditional Bishop, 
is one 'hundred and twenty-three years. In 
making a dead calculation under the circum- 
stances, while we would not expect to find any 
gross mistakes, we would expect to discover 
enough to detect the true character of the work, 
for truth can never be so skilfully counterfeit- 
ed, but that we can readily distinguish it from 
that which is false and spurious. The difference 
between the skilful counterfeit and the genuine 
bill is often slight, so much so that none but ex- 
perts can detect it; but it is this difference which 
termines its character. 

If the time occupied by the Bishops had fall- 
en short two years, we might account for it on 



Therapeutce. 271 

the principle of an interregnum ; but where the 
time is in excess, it is proof of a blunder or mis- 
take, on the part of some one who is engaged in 
a dishonest employment. 

Clement became Bishop in A.D. 91, and filled 
the office for nine years. This leaves his suc- 
cessor to take his place in A.D. 100, whereas he 
took it in A.D. 101, one year after the office was 
vacant. Euaristus took the office in A.D. 101, 
held it eight years, to A.D. 109; his successor 
took his place in A.D. no, leaving a gap of one 
year. Telesphorus became Bishop in A.D. 129, 
and served eleven years, which would leave the 
office vacant in A.D. 140 ; but his successor 
takes it in A.D. 138, two years before the death 
of his predecessor. Anicetus took the office in 
A.D. 157, and served eleven years, to A.D. 168. 
His successor, Soter, took the office in the 
eighth year of Verus, which would be A.D. 
169. Here is a clear gap of one year. 

It was intended that the time assigned to the 
Bishops should correspond with the true histo- 
ric period, and be 101 instead of 103 years. 
There are three years of vacancies, and a lap of 
two years in the case of Telesphorus and Hy- 



272 Therapeutce. 

ginus. If we deduct this lap, it will stand one 
hundred and one, the true time. 

Eusebius meant well and intended no offence 
to chronology, but blundered, and in fixing 
twelve dates only makes four mistakes. Dur- 
ing a time when accuracy of dates is more im- 
portant than at any other, there seems to have 
been less care exercised than in the same space 
of time in any period of history ; and indeed, 
since the foundation of Rome, over seven 
hundred years before Christ, to the end of the 
empire, there has not been so many mistakes 
and. contradictions, as to dates which relate to 
successive rulers, as during this period of one 
hundred and twenty-one years. But such is 
the difference between true and genuine, and 
false and spurious history. 

Of the twelve traditional Bishops of Irenaeus, 
Telesphorus is selected for the honors of mar- 
tyrdom. No period in Roman history could 
have been selected more unlikely and improba- 
ble for the death of a Christian Bishop at Rome 
on account of his religion, than the reign of 
Antoninus Pius. Not one drop of Christian 
blood was spilt in Rome during his reign of 



TherapetitcB. 273 

twenty-three years. Not only was there no 
blood spilt in Rome, but he forbade the per- 
secution of Christians in the provinces by an 
express edict. A modern writer, speaking of 
him, says : " Open to conviction, uncorrupted 
by the vain and chimerical philosophy of the 
times, he was desirous of f doing justice to all 
mankind. Asia propria was still the scene of 
vital Christianity and cruel persecution. These 
Christians applied to Antoninus, and complain- 
ed of the many injuries they sustained from the 
people of the country. Earthquakes, it seems, 
had lately happened, and the pagans were much 
terrified, and ascribed them to the vengeance 
of Heaven against Christians." (Milner, C. H. y 
vol. I., page 100.) 

Here follows the edict of the pious Emperor, 
addressed to the enemies of the Christians : 
" As to the earthquakes which have happened in 
past times, or lately, is it not proper to remind 
you of your own despondency when they hap- 
pened, and to desire you to compare your 
spirit with theirs, and observe how serenely they 
confide in God ? You live in practical ignorance 

of the Supreme God himself — you harass and 

12* 



274 Therapeutce. 

persecute to death those who worship him. 
Concerning these same men, some others of the 
provincials wrote to our divine Hadrian, to 
whom he returned answer, that they should 
not be molested unless they appeared to attempt 
something against the Roman government. 
Many also have signified to me concerning 
these men, to whom I have returned an an- 
swer agreeable to the maxims of my fathers. 
But if any person will still persist in accusing 
the Christians merely as such, let the accused 
be acquitted, though he appear to be a Chris- 
tian, and let the accused be punished" Set up 
at Ephesus in the common assembly of Asia. 

Is it possible that Telesphorus was put to 
death in Rome under the mild and gentle reign 
of such a man ? 

If the persons who are named by Irenseus as 
Bishops were real and not fictitious, how is it 
that there was not something done or said by 
some or all of them, so as to connect them with 
the events which transpired during their lives ? 
They lived, if they lived at all, during the most 
eventful period of Roman history. It was dur- 
ing the period of the civil war, when Rome was 



Therapcutce. 275 

reduced to ashes — when the Jewish nation was 
almost destroyed by the legions of Titus, Jeru- 
salem rendered a desert place, and the victorious 
armies of Trajan added Armenia, Mesopotamia, 
and Assyria to the Empire. During a period 
of seventy years, filled with the most exciting 
scenes and mighty events the world has ever 
known, we have at least nine Bishops in Rome, 
whose presence is no more felt in the history of 
the times, than so many men who were dead 
and quietly resting in their graves. They do 
not even cast their shadows on the earth. 

The first person on the list of these traditional 
Bishops who steps forth into the light, so that 
we see something real and tangible, is Anicetus. 
Hegisippus says, " After coming to Rome, I 
made my stay with Anicetus, whose deacon was 
Eleutherus." Taking the foregoing data as 
correct, Anicetus held the office of Bishop about 
A. D. 157. If the statement of Hegisippus is 
true, which we are inclined to believe, not be- 
cause he says so, but because it is probable, he 
is the first person- who had ever seen and talked 
with any of the traditional Bishops of Irenseus, 
and he is tenth in order of succession. But it is 1 



276 Therapeutce. 

not until we come to Eleutherus that we have 
a historic character, whose acts can be traced 
and found in the history of the times. Here we 
part company with spectres and deal with real 
life ; but as we leave an age populated by phan- 
toms, we enter into another stained with for- 
geries and fraud. 



Therapeuta. 277 



CHAPTER XX. 

The prophetic period. — The fourteenth verse of the 
seventh chapter of Isaiah explained. 

THE claims of Christ to be the Logos or Son 
of God, in the Alexandrian sense, are made ma- 
nifest by prophecy and miracles. The Jews, in- 
fluenced by the prophets of their nation, be- 
lieved that a deliverer would some day appear, 
who would deliver them out of the hands of all 
their enemies, and establish a temporal kingdom 
on the earth. But up to the time when Christ 
appeared, and even to the present day, no one 
had shown himself who realized their idea of this 
divine mission. The Christians at the time of 
Christ believed that he was the one spoken of 
by the old prophets, and that a spiritual de- 
liverer, one who was to deliver men from the 
power of Satan, had been mistaken for one who 
with temporal power would rescue the Jewish 
people from the hands of their foes. 



2J& Therapeutcz. 

Barnabas, the companion of Paul, firmly be- 
lieved this to be so, and took pains to cite many- 
texts from the Old Testament to prove it. He 
cites numerous passages from Daniel, and all 
the prophets, arid especially searched the pages 
of Isaiah, where he claims to have found at least 
sixteen different references made to Christ as 
the coming Saviour. But in all his references 
to the prophecies he makes none to the cele- 
brated passage in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, 
on which is founded the doctrine of the divine 
conception of Christ from a Virgin. He makes 
no allusion to the fourteenth verse of the chap- 
ter at all, so that he was ignorant of the very 
foundation on which the Christianity of the 
second century was reared. Nor does Polycarp 
or Ignatius, except where their writings have 
been clearly defaced by the forgeries of men, 
who wished to establish the new ideas of the 
day by the authority of the fathers. 

But when we come down to the second cen- 
tury, as far as the times of Justin Martyr, we find 
pages in the writings of the day filled with a new 
class of citations from the Old Testament, all of 
which foreshadow the appearance of Christ, his 



Therapeutce. 279 

birth from a virgin, and point him out as the 
one foretold by the prophets. . In his Apology 
to the emperor, Justin Martyr quotes numerous 
passages from the Old and New Testaments to 
prove the divine mission of Christ, and speaks 
of his miraculous conception from the Virgin. 
(Apology, sec. 43.) 

We now enter a new era, filled with new ideas, 
and passages of Scripture which before had been 
overlooked, but which all at once were discov- 
ered to contain a meaning which concerned the 
eternal interests of mankind. The Synoptics are 
now spread out before the world, and Christian- 
ity, armed by the voice of the prophets of God, 
is prepared to make a new start. One fact will 
appear clear as we approach the end of this sub- 
ject, that all the men who undertook to strength- 
en the cause of Christianity by the application 
of prophecy to the person of Christ were igno- 
rant of Jewish history, and either wofully mis- 
understood the language of the prophets, or 
foolishly attempted to pervert it. 

There are four prophecies cited in the Gospel 
of Matthew from the Old Testament, which it is 
claimed point out Christ as the one foretold by 



280 Therapeutce. 

the old Jewish prophets. 1st. " Behold, a vir- 
gin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a 
son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, 
which being interpreted is, God with us. " 
(Matt. i. 23.) It must be borne in mind, as has 
been before stated, that when the new idea of 
the Logos was started, it was found necessary in 
some way to make Christ more than mortal. To 
be the Son of God in the Alexandrian sense he 
must have God for his father, and this could be 
only brought about through a virgin oversha- 
dowed by his divine presence. In the zeal of 
these men, who undertook to prove it, they se- 
lected a passage from Isaiah which had no ap- 
plication to anything outside of the Jewish his- 
tory of the day. 

Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Is- 
rael, united and made war on Ahaz, king of Ju- 
dah, and marched upon Jerusalem. Ahaz be- 
came alarmed at the combination, and feared the 
capture of the holy city and the destruction of 
his kingdom. The Lord took compassion on 
him and his people, and sent Isaiah to him with 
an order to meet him at the end of the conduit 
of the upper pool, where he would inform him 



Therapeutcz. 281 

what would be the fate of Judah and her ene- 
mies. 

"Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth 
now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy 
son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool 
in the highway of the fuller's field ; and say unto 
him, Take heed, and be quiet ; fear not, neither 
be faint-hearted for the two tails of these smoking 
firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Sy- 
ria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, 
Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken 
evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up 
against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a 
breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst 
of it, even the son of Tabeal. Thus saith the 
Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it 
come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damas- 
cus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin : and 
within threescore and five years shall Ephraim 
be broken, that it be not a people. And the 
head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of 
Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not be- 
lieve, surely ye shall not be established. More- 
over, the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 
Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it 



282 Therapeu tee. 

either in the depth, or in the height above. But 
Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt 
the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house 
of David ; Is it a small thing for you to weary 
men, but will ye weary my God also ? There- 
fore the Lord himself shall give you a sign : be- 
hold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, 
and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and 
honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse 
the evil, and choose the good. For before the 
child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose 
the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be 
forsaken of both her kings. The Lord shall 
bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and 
upon thy father's house, days that have not 
come, from the day that Ephraim departed from 
Judah ; even the king of Assyria." (Isaiah vii. 

3-17) 

The Lord told Ahaz not to fear or be faint- 
hearted, and he undertook to tell him how long 
it would be before Rezin and Pekah would be 
defeated and driven away. In fixing the time, 
Isaiah indulges in a poetic license, and pur- 
posely rendered it obscure. The language used 
expresses this meaning : If a virgin should con- 



Therapeutcz. 283 

ceive from that time, the day when the Lord 
spoke to Ahaz, the child would be born before 
his enemies would be subdued or driven away ; 
but not a great while before, for when they were 
driven away, the child would still be so young 
as not to know how to refuse the evil and 
choose the good. If the Lord did not tell Ahaz 
in some way when his enemies would be sub- 
dued, then the object of the interview entirely 
failed ; for that was just what Ahaz wanted to 
know, and which the Lord promised to disclose 
to him. Be not faint-hearted, neither be afraid, 
for in such a time your deliverance shall come. 
If the Lord wished to inform him that he would 
be delivered from Rezin and Pekah, after the 
Messiah spoken of in the Scriptures should 
come, which happened seven hundred years 
later, he would know no more after, than he 
did before he conversed with the Lord. The 
Lord did not tell him the precise day, but fur- 
nished Ahaz the data by which he might make 
his own calculations. 

A very simple answer is purposely obscured 
by connecting some things with it which have 
a remote bearing on the subject, and others 



284 Therapeutcz. 

which have no connection with it at all. " But- 
ter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to 
refuse the evil and choose the good," is an ob- 
scure allusion to the age of the child : and his 
name shall be called Immanuel, is of no signifi- 
cance, for he might as well be called by any 
other name. When we first read the passage, 
we see nothing distinct : all is in a kind of penum- 
bra ; but after looking for a short time, as in a 
curiously shaded picture, an image, an idea, 
shows or appears on the ground-work, well 
marked and defined. 

The explanation we have given of the pas- 
sage from Isaiah is justified and made apparent 
by the language used in the first, second, and 
third verses of the eighth chapter of this pro- 
phet. It seems the Lord wished to prove to 
Ahaz, by actual demonstration, that what he 
promised should be fulfilled to the letter. The 
prophet says, he took with him two faithful 
witnesses and went in to the prophetess (who 
was the virgin) and she conceived and bare a 
son. Then when the son was born, the Lord 
said to the prophet, that before the child could 
pronounce the name of father or mother, "the 



Therapeutcz. 285 

riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria 
shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." 
Tiglath Pileser, king of the Assyrians, did come 
to the aid of Ahaz, and made war on the Sy- 
rians — laid their country waste — took Damascus, 
and slew Rezin. He afflicted the land of Israel, 
and carried the people away captives. ( Josephus , 
Antiq., book ix. chap. 12, sec. 3.) All this too 
within the time promised Ahaz, according to 
Isaiah. 

The mystical language used by Isaiah in the 
fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter, which 
has been the cause of so much speculation and 
false interpretation, springs from the poetic ele- 
ment of the Hebrew mind. Had Isaiah lived 
in our day, his sublime genius would have pro- 
duced a Paradise Lost ; but in his own country, 
and in his own times, his imagination dwelt upon 
ideas and thoughts which had their root in the 
hearts of the Jewish people. The Hebrew 
poets found subjects within the history of their 
own nation best suited to arouse their genius, 
and move the hearts of the people. The sor- 
rows and afflictions brought on the nation by 
her enemies, and her final deliverance by the 



286 Therapeiitcz. 

hand of the Lord, are favorite themes, and in- 
spire her poets with thoughts full of tenderness, 
and with denunciations which are sublime and 
often terrific. The harp of Zion in the hands 
of the daughters of Judah, as they weep by 
the waters of Babylon, gives forth no sounds 
but those of sorrow ; but the genius of her 
prophets, inspired by a consciousness that a 
time of deliverance will come, deals out thunder- 
bolts on the heads of their oppressors. 

What are called the prophecies of Isaiah are 
nothing more, many of them, than so many 
epic poems, like the Iliad of Homer, to cele- 
brate scenes and real occurrences in Jewish his- 
tory. The war upon Ahaz, king of Judah, by 
Rezin and Pekah, kings of Israel and Syria, took 
place during the life of Isaiah : and the poet 
undertakes to commemorate the history of the 
times, in the form of a Jewish epic. He speaks 
of the past, and not of things to come. The 
Jews were taught to believe that their nation 
was the favorite people of God, and from the 
time of Moses to the last of her prophets, her 
poets did not hesitate to introduce the Lord, 
and cause him to take part in a Jewish epic, any 



Therapeutce. 287 

more than Homer hesitated to introduce Jupiter 
and all the heathen gods into the story of the 
Iliad. The meeting of the Lord and Ahaz at 
the "end of conduit of the upper field," and 
what afterwards takes place, is the poetic license 
of the poet, as he undertakes to narrate a por- 
tion of the history of his own time. 



Therapeiitce. 



CHAPTER XXL 

Bethlehem the birthplace of Christ, as foretold by the 
prophets. — Cyrus, the deliverer and ruler referred to 
by Micah the prophet. — The Lamentations of Jere- 
miah spoken of by Matthew (Chap. ii. 18), refers to 
the Jews, and not to the massacre of the infants by 
Herod. 

When Herod inquired of the wise men 
where Christ should be born, they said unto 
him, "In Bethlehem of Judea : for thus it is 
written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, 
in the land of Juda, art not the least among the 
princes of Juda : for out of thee shall come a 
Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." 
{Matt. ii. 5, 6.) 

The passage is taken from the prophet Micah, 
who was a cotemporary with Jeremiah, and 
prophesied under the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, 
and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. He lived during 
the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the great enemy 
of the Jewish nation, and witnessed a large 
share of the miseries he inflicted upon that 



Therapeutcz. 289 

people. We would infer from the first verse of 
the fifth chapter, that his book was written at a 
time when the armies of the king of Babylon 
were encamped around the walls of Jerusa- 
lem. 

"Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter 
of troops : he hath laid siege against us ; they 
shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon 
the cheek." Looking forward to the time when 
the Jewish people will be delivered from the 
power of Nebuchadnezzar and the Assyrian 
nation, and of their conquest by some other 
power, the prophet, aroused by a prophetic 
spirit, announces that the time is coming when 
Israel shall again be free: "But thou, Beth- 
lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among 
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he 
come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; 
whose goings forth have been from of old, from 
everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, 
until the time that she which travaileth hath 
brought forth : then the remnant of his brethren 
shall return unto the children of Israel. And 
he shall stand and feed in the strength of the 
Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord 
13 



290 Therapeutce. 

his God ; and they shall abide ; for now shall 
he be great unto the ends of the earth." (Micah 
v. 2, 3, 4.) 

In the tenth verse of the fourth chapter, the 
captivity of the Jews, and their transportation 
to Babylon, is distinctly announced, and they 
are told that while in the hands of the Assyrians, 
they shall be as a woman in travail ; but that, 
like her, they should in time be delivered from 
suffering. The third verse of the fifth chapter 
declares that God will not interfere in the mean 
time, and that they must wait for deliverance, 
and submit to their sufferings, as unavoidable 
as in the case of the woman ; that at the ap- 
pointed time a deliverer would come, who would 
save and bring back a remnant of the people, 
who shall grow powerful and "be great to the 
ends of the earth." 

Now it is deliverance from Assyrian captivity 
that is referred to, and it is to violate the fitness 
of time, place, history, and the state of the Jews 
to apply it to anything else. Amidst the awful 
fate impending over the Jewish people, they 
wanted something to encourage and sustain 
them ; and the prophet undertook to do so, by 



Thcrapcutcz. 291 

a promise, that in time their captivity should 
cease, and they be allowed to return to their 
own country. 

But deliverance is to come from Bethlehem 
Ephratah — words which sufficiently indicate 
from what quarter the deliverer was to come ; 
and to give a false direction the word Ephratah is 
omitted in the text in Matthew. Bethlehem in 
Judea is surely not intended, but the country 
watered by the river Euphrates. A little poetic 
license to create obscurity — a peculiarity of the 
Jewish prophets — does not at all render the mean- 
ing doubtful. Cyrus was king of all the coun- 
try watered by the Euphrates ; and the Assy- 
rian empire ceased to exist when he restored 
the Jews to their own country. Cyrus was a 
ruler in Israel. He took the direction of their 
affairs, ordered the temple to be rebuilt, and 
directed how the means were to be provided to 
pay the expense. (Letter of Cyrus to Sisinnes 
and Sathrabouzanes. Josephus, Antiq. , book xi. 
chap. 1, sec. 3.) Cyrus is the ruler alluded to, 
and not Christ. The deliverer was to be at the 
head of a very ancient people — the Medes and 
Persians — who "have been from old — from 



292 Therapeutce. 

everlasting.*" When did Christ rule over Is- 
rael ? Never. 

That Jesus lived at Nazareth until he grew to 
be a young man could not be disputed, and no 
doubt the fact was stated in the Hebrew Gospel 
of Matthew. He might live there, but he must 
be born in Bethlehem, and some excuse must be 
had to get Mary there at the precise time when 
his birth took place. The device of the tax to 
take her there at the time is weak and puerile, 
and proves that those who got it up were neither 
wise nor learned. Matthew barely alludes to 
Bethlehem as the place of Christ's birth. " Now 
when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in 
the days of Herod the king, behold, there came 
wise men from the east to Jerusalem." Luke 
is more specific. " And it came to pass in those 
days that there went out a decree from Caesar 
Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." 
(Luke ii. 1.) " And all went to be taxed, every 
one into his own city. And Joseph also went 
up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into 
Judea, into the city of David, which is called 
Bethlehem (because he was of the house and 
lineage of David), to be taxed with Mary his 



Therapeu tee. 293 

espoused wife, being great with child." {Luke 

ii. 3, 4, 5-) 

The Jews were taxed at the place where their- 
property, real or personal, was at the time of 
taxing, and not where their ancestors happened 
to be born. A law or decree of the kind men- 
tioned would involve a movement of almost the 
entire population of Judea, and for no reason, 
unless it was to give the people a chance to de- 
fraud the tax-gatherer by concealing their effects. 

The Cyrenius mentioned was sent out by Cae- 
sar " to be a judge of that nation (the Jews) and 
take an account of their substance." (Josephus, 
Antiq.y book xviii. chap. I, sec. I.) It would not 
be necessary for Joseph to go to Bethlehem, 
seventy-five miles away, where he had nothing, 
to give an account of his substance, when all he 
had was in Nazareth. Besides, Judea was at 
this time under the government of Rome, and if 
there ever had been a law among the Jews re- 
quiring each one of them to go to his native 
city to be taxed, the Romans could not have 
any object in enforcing it. Admit that Joseph 
was. required to go to Bethlehem because David 
was born there several hundred years before, to 



294 Titer apeutce. 

be taxed : why was it necessary for Mary to go 
with him ? He was to give to the Roman offi- 
cer " an account of his substance : " and did this 
require the presence of Mary ? 

The writer of Luke fixes the time when this 
tax was to be levied. It was when Cyrenius 
was Governor of Syria. Now this Cyrenius, 
according to Josephus, was a Roman senator, 
who was sent to Judea " to take an account of 
the substance of the people," as a basis of tax- 
ation. This was after Archelaus, the son of 
Herod, had been deposed, and ten years after 
the death of Herod. Christ was ten years old 
when Cyrenius was made Governor, so that the 
journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was 
ten years before the decree to tax was made. 
The following are the words of Josephus : "Now 
Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had 
gone through other magistracies and had passed 
through them till he had been Consul, and one 
who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, 
came at this time into Syria, with a few others 
sent by Caesar, to be a judge of that nation, and 
to take an account of their substance'' (Jose- 
phus, Antiq.y book xviii. chap. I, sec. I.) 



Therapeutce. 295 

Had the writer of Matthew known anything 
of Jewish history, he never would have made so 
gross a blunder, and saved the immense amount 
of labor that it has taken to explain away the 
effects of his ignorance. One explanation of 
this mistake is, that there were two assessments 
— one about the time Jesus was born, and the 
other ten years after. The first has been proven 
to be a forgery, and was never made. (Kenan's 
Life of Christ, chap. 1. See note.) 

" In Ramah was there a voice of lamentation 
and weeping and great mourning. Rachel 
weeping for her children and would not be com- 
forted." This, it is claimed, referred to the 
cruelties of Herod, to escape from which Joseph 
and Christ were forced to fly into Egypt ; so 
that his subsequent return to Nazareth would 
answer to the prophecy, which says, ' i Behold, 
from Egypt I have called my Son." In the first 
place, the story of Herod's cruelties in the 
case of the infants is an invention, without 
the least claim to truth, and was a lame 
excuse, as we have just stated, to get Christ into 
Egypt. 

"Then Herod, when he saw he was mocked 



296 Thetapeidce. 

of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent 
forth and slew all the children that were in 
Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, from 
two years old and under, according to the time 
which he had diligently inquired of the wise 
men." A very short time, not more than two 
or three days, elapsed after the birth of Christ, 
when Herod, not hearing from the wise men, 
gave the command for the wholesale murder of 
the infants. It was certainly giving Herod 
more credit for cruelty than was necessary, even 
on that occasion, for as Christ was only a few 
days old when the order was given, it was use- 
less murder to include all under two years : 
ninety-five per cent, of the infants might as 
well have been spared as not. 

It is a matter of surprise that Josephus, the 
Jewish historian, who suffers nothing deserving 
notice to escape his pen, has made no mention 
of a fact which, if true, would have filled Beth- 
lehem and the country round about it with 
mourning. He could afford to make mention 
of the quarrels in Herod's family ; but not one 
word to say about the wholesale slaughter of 
the infants. The story is so absurd, so easily 



Therapeutcz. 297 

exposed, and of no possible use, that it is omit- 
ted in Mark, Luke, and John. 

But if the story is true, what has it to do with 
the troubles of Rachel ? The passage from 
Jeremiah refers to a time in the history of the 
Jews when Jerusalem was taken and held by 
the Assyrians, and a great number of that peo- 
ple had taken refuge in Egypt. The Jews were 
undergoing great afflictions, and God, through 
Jeremiah, undertakes to console and comfort 
them. The Lord, in plain language, says : I 
know that there is great suffering in Ramah — 
much lamentation and bitter weeping. Israel 
has lost many of her children, and she suffers 
great sorrow and grief. " Thus saith the Lord : 
Refrain thy voice from weeping, for thy work 
shall be rewarded, saith the Lord ; and they 
shall come again from the land of the enemy." 
(Jeremiah xxxi. 15, 16.) What has this to do 
with the cruelty of Herod ? 

We have stated that the massacre of the infants 
was an invention to form an excuse to get Jesus 
into Egypt ; for his return from that country 
would serve to prove that he was the one re- 
ferred to when the Lord is made to say, " Out 
13* 



298 Therapeutce. 

of Egypt I have called my son." Here, we 
confess, we are at a loss to express our aston- 
ishment. In the eleventh chapter of Hosea, 
the Lord complains of the ingratitude of the 
Jewish nation, and reminds them what he had 
done for them in times past. He expresses the 
love he had for them when the nation was 
young, and required the power of his arm to 
protect them. " When Israel was a child \ then 
I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt?' 
{Hosea xi. 1.) It need not be said, that this 
refers to the deliverance of the Jews from the 
hands of Pharaoh. Israel is the son spoken of 
who had already passed out of Egypt. " And 
he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, 
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." 
{Matthew ii. 23.) There is no such prophecy 
to be found in the Old Testament. 



Therapeutcs. 299 



CHAPTER XXII. 

Christ and John the Baptist. 

" The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God ; As it is written in the pro- 
phets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy 
face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths 
straight." {Mark i. 1,2, 3.) As in Matthew, 
at the very outset, the second Gospel starts out 
to show that Christ is the one foretold by the 
prophets, and that a direct reference is made to 
him by Isaiah, as one who was to be preceded 
by another who was to prepare the way for his 
advent. Cotemporaneous history, and a critical 
examination of the words of the prophet, will 
dispel the delusion, 

Hezekiah, king of Judea, was improvident 
enough to show to the son of the king of Baby- 
lon, then on a visit to him, all his treasures, and 



300 Therapeutcz. 

riches of every description ; and " there was no- 
thing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that 
Hezekiah shewed him not." When Isaiah was 
told by the king himself what he had done, the 
prophet spoke and said : "Hear the word of 
the Lord of hosts : Behold, the days come, that 
all that is in thine house, and that which thy 
fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall 
be carried to Babylon : nothing shall be left, 
saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue 
from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take 
away ; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace 
of the king of Babylon. Then said Hezekiah to 
Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which 
thou hast spoken. He said moreover, For there 
shall be peace and truth in my days." {Isaiah 
xxxix. 5, 6, 7, 8.) The Babylonian captivity 
is here referred to. 

Isaiah then proceeds to declare that after 
great suffering, in their servitude under the As- 
syrians, the Lord would deliver the Jewish peo- 
ple, and that they should again be a great and 
prosperous nation. " Comfort ye, comfort ye 
my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfor- 
tably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her 



Therapemtce. 301 

warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is 
pardoned : for she hath received of the Lord's 
hand double for all her sins. The voice of him 
that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord, make straight in the desert a high- 
way for our God. Every valley shall be ex- 
alted, and every mountain and hill shall be made 
low : and the crooked shall be made straight, 
and the rough places plain." {Isaiah xl. 1, 2, 
3,4.) 

With what tenderness the prophet speaks to 
his countrymen, to assure them that their captiv- 
ity will not last forever ! Divested of poetical 
language and figures, the Lord says : In your 
lost condition in slavery ("wilderness") you 
shall hear the voice of the Lord to comfort you. 
Be prepared, for he will provide the means 
(" highway ") for your deliverance from captiv- 
ity. The words wilderness, desert, and high- 
way are symbolical terms, representing the lost 
condition of the Jews and the promise made by 
the Lord, that he would provide means for their 
deliverance from their enemies. What follows, 
holds forth to the Jews a glorious future. 
" Every valley shall be exalted, and every moun- 



302 Therapeutce. 

tain and hill shall be made low." That is, the 
down-trodden and oppressed children of Israel 
shall once more take the stand of an independ- 
ent nation ; and the proud and lofty Assyrian 
shall in his turn be humbled, and come under 
the yoke of the conqueror. The idea which un- 
derlies the language of the prophet is, that the 
Jews will be ultimately restored to their own 
country, and again become a prosperous people ; 
and as is characteristic of all these Jewish pro- 
phecies, the expressions, " and the crooked shall 
be made straight, and the rough places plain," 
are mere expletives, to obscure the sense, and 
increase the ambiguity. Like the oracles of 
Greece, a simple idea is concealed beneath 
figures and metaphors, and the mind distracted 
by the introduction of thoughts that have no 
meaning, and no connection with the sub- 
ject. 

Josephus, after giving a full account of this 
prophecy from Isaiah says, it was subsequently 
fulfilled in the captivity and restoration of the 
Jews, and that when he wrote, the words of the 
prophet had passed into history. (Antiq., 
bookx. chap. 2, sec. 2.) The Lord, by the pro- 



Therapeutcz. 303 

phet, is addressing the Jews of that day about 
matters which directly concerned them, and 
what was said had no more to do with John the 
Baptist preaching on the Jordan, in the neigh- 
borhood of the Arabian desert, than it had 
with the travels of Livingstone over the sands 
of Africa. The John referred to in Mark is a 
historic character, and all we know about him 
we learn through Josephus. 

In his day he was a reformer. Shocked at 
the low condition of the Jews, who had reached 
the lowest deep in crimes and vices of all kinds, 
through the corruption of the priesthood, and 
tyranny of their civil Governors, he undertook 
to reform abuses, and elevate the moral standard 
of the nation. Standing on the banks of the 
Jordan, crowds from the surrounding country 
came to hear him denounce the sins of the peo- 
ple, and be baptized. He preached repentance, 
and those who did repent he purified with the 
mystic waters of the Jordan. 

In the time of John, the Jewish people had 
become restive, and chafed under the govern- 
ment of Rome. The elements of rebellion were 
then at work, which, a few years later, led to 



304 Therapeutcz. 

open revolt, and the total ruin of the nation. 
While the Jews overran with discontent, the 
Roman Governors were filled with suspicion. 
Herod took alarm at the course of John, and 
caused him to be seized and confined in the 
castle of Macherus, situated on the borders of 
the desert, where he was afterwards put to 
death. All that is known of him is found in 
the following extract from Josephus : 

"Now, some of the Jews thought that the 
destruction of Herod's army came from God, 
and that very justly, as a punishment of what 
he did against John, that was called the Bap- 
tist ; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, 
and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, 
both as to righteousness towards one another, 
and piety towards God, and so to come to bap- 
tism ; for that washing [with water] would be 
acceptable to him if they made use of it, not in 
order to the putting away [or remission] of 
some sins [only], but for the purification of the 
body ; supposing still that the soul was tho- 
roughly purified beforehand by righteousness. 
Now, when [many] others came in crowds about 
him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] 



Titer apeutce. 305 

by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest 
the great influence John had over the people 
might put it into his power and inclination to 
raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do 
anything he should advise), thought it best, by 
putting him to death, to prevent any mischief 
he might cause, and not bring himself into diffi- 
culties, by sparing a man who might make him 
repent of it when it should be too late. Ac- 
cordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's 
suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I 
before mentioned, and was there put to death. 
Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruc- 
tion of this army was sent as a punishment upon 
Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure against 
him." (Josephus, Antiq., book xviii. chap. 5, 
sec. 2.) 

It was this passage, and the one from Isaiah, 
" The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, 
Prepare ye the way of the Lord," that suggested 
the story of Christ coming from Galilee to the 
Jordan to be baptized by John, and the scenes 
that followed. As Josephus, in the passage just 
quoted, speaks of what John was doing on the 
Jordan, and what occurred there, it is strange 



306 Therapeutce. 

he takes no notice of the wonderful things which 
took place at the time Christ was baptized, as 
described in Matthew. But, as we have shown, 
the prophecy of Isaiah has nothing to do with 
John the Baptist. 

The story that the life of John was the price 
paid for a jig danced before Herod, is not only 
false and absurd, but in one sense impossible. 
Herod was a Roman officer, and received his 
appointment from Rome. As the Governor of 
a province, he acted under, and was governed 
by law. To take life without sufficient cause, 
from mere wantonness or caprice, subjected 
him to punishment and removal from office. 
Herod might put John to death as a promoter 
of sedition, but not to gratify the spite of a 
woman who had been accused of incest. Pilate 
dared not deliver over Christ to be crucified, 
until after he was charged by the Jews with 
conspiring against the government of Caesar. 
His claim to be king of the Jews, which was 
made a charge against him, was the warrant 
which Pilate had to surrender him to a merci- 
less mob, which would not be satisfied with 
anything less than his blood. The author of 



Therapeutce. 307 

Matthew, it is clear, was ignorant of the topo- 
graphy of Judea, the history of the Jews, and 
knew nothing of the fundamental principles of 
the Roman law. 



308 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

The miracle of the cloven tongues. — Misapplication of 
a prophecy of Joel. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, a passage from 
Joel the prophet is spoken of by Peter, as fore- 
telling what is called the miracle of tongues. 
At the end of forty days Christ appeared to his 
disciples at Jerusalem, and being assembled to- 
gether with them, they were commanded not to 
depart from Jerusalem until certain things should 
take place. Now the writer of the Acts forgot 
what he said in his Gospel, if he wrote both, 
for he there tells us that Christ ascended the 
day of his resurrection, or at most, the day after. 
Taking what we can glean from the four Gos- 
pels, and taking the probabilities of the case 
into the account, the disciples, a very short 
time after the death of Jesus, returned to Gali- 
lee. The public mind was greatly moved 
against Jesus, which was more or less directed 



Therapeutce. 309 

against his followers, and as none of them were 
remarkable for courage, it is hardly probable 
that they would tarry in Jerusalem, especially 
as there was nothing to keep them. But ac- 
cording to the writer in Luke, at the end of 
the forty days they were still in the city, and 
were commanded not to leave until certain 
things took place. 

He next says, " And when the day of Pen- 
tecost was fully come, they were all with one 
accord in one place. And suddenly there came 
a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty 
wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon 
each of them. And they were filled with the 
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 
(Acts 11. I, 2, 3, 4.) 

This is something truly wonderful, and we are 
astonished that so strange and important an 
event has found no place in history — especially 
as a report of it must have been circulated far 
and wide, for the writer says, that " there were 
dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews out of every nation 



310 Therapeut<z. 

under heaven," who came to see for them- 
selves. The writer includes other people besides 
Jews from every nation, and says : " Now when 
this was noised abroad, the multitude came 
together, and were confounded ; " and among 
these were " Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and 
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and 
Cappadocia" — people from "Phrygia, Pam- 
phylia, Cretans and Arabians" — and all heard 
spoken the language of their native countries. 

Josephus lived not long after this time, and 
if he did not reside in Jerusalem, he must have 
been often in the Jewish capital, and if anything 
so wonderful as this had taken place, he cer- 
tainly must have heard of it, and it was not 
possible for him to forget it when he came to 
write his history, especially as things of no com- 
parative importance are fully noted by him. 

These things are so wonderful, that it is 
necessary to explain them by the direct action 
of the Deity, in fulfilment of prophecy. The 
writer has Peter make a speech, and Peter tells 
the crowd that they need not be surprised, for 
what had just happened had all been foretold, 
and was nothing more than the fulfilment of a 



Therapeutce. 311 

prophecy of Joel, who said : "And it shall 
come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will 
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh : and your 
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and 
your young men shall see visions, and your old 
men shall dream dreams. And on my servants 
and on my handmaids I will pour out in those 
days of my Spirit ; and they shall prophesy : 
and I will shew wonders in heaven above, and 
signs in the earth beneath ; blood, and fire, and 
vapor of smoke : the sun shall be turned into 
darkness, and the moon into blood, before that 
great and notable day of the Lord come." 
{Acts ii. 17, 18, 19, 20.) 

All this has nothing more to do with, or has 
no more reference to, the miracle of the cloven 
tongues than it has to the assassination of Julius 
Csesar in the Roman Senate. The Jews, at the 
time referred to by Joel, were suffering under 
great afflictions. There had been a most severe 
drought, and the land had been devoured by 
the locust, the canker-worms and caterpillar. 
As all calamities which befell the Jewish people 
were referred by them to the displeasure of God 
on account of their sins, Joel exhorts them to 



312 Therapeutce. 

repent, and promises, if they do, the Lord will 
come to the rescue. "Then will the Lord be 
• zealous for his land and pity the people. He 
will send down rain, and the floors shall be full 
of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine 
and oil. And I will restore to you the years 
that the locust had eaten, the canker-worm and 
caterpillar and palmer-worm, my great army m 
which I sent among you. And you shall eat in 
plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of 
the Lord your God, that hath dealt wondrously 
with you. And ye shall know that I am in the 
midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your 
God, and none else : and my people shall never 
be ashamed." 

Now follows what Peter was made to say was 
the prophecy which foretold the miracle of the 
cloven tongues. "And it shall come to pass 
afterwards that I will pour out my Spirit on all 
flesh ; and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, 
and your young men shall see visions." Which 
means, I will pour out my blessings (" Spirit ") 
on all flesh, including the servants and hand- 
maids — they shall be universal, and not confined 



Therapeutce. 313 

to any class. . Then all the young and the old 
shall rejoice and be happy. Their happiness 
shall be of the most exalted kind, unalloyed 
with care, like delightful dreams and visions. 
As the prophet had said in the beginning of this 
chapter: "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and 
sound an alarm in my holy mountain : let all 
the inhabitants of the land tremble : for the day 
of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand ; a 
day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of 
clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning 
spread upon the mountains : a great people and 
a strong ; there hath not been ever the like, 
neither shall be any more after it, even to the 
years of many generations." {Joelil. 1, 2.) 

Referring to this terrible calamity which 
was to come, that the fear of it might not 
interrupt this general state of happiness which is 
spoken of, the Lord tells the people that he will 
give them timely notice, that they may be pre- 
pared : " And I will shew wonders in the 
heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and 
pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into 
darkness, and the moon into blood, before the 

great and the terrible day of the Lord come." 

14* 



3 1 4 Therapeutcz. 

{Joel ii. 30, 31.) There could not be a state of 
universal joy among the people, such as is de- 
scribed, as long as the " great and terrible day 
of the Lord " might overtake them any mo- 
ment. There could be no happiness where 
there was constant fear. The Lord promised 
that a timely warning shauld be given. Now 
what has this beautiful and sublime poem to do 
with the miracle of the cloven tongues ? 



Therapeutce. 315 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

Miracles. 

It is in vain to deny the truth of a miracle 
on the ground that it is impossible, and contra- 
venes the well-established laws of the universe. 
The power to create, implies the power to sus- 
pend ; and as the performance of a miracle is 
the exercise of creative energy, it is just as 
easy to exercise it in one case as another. All 
efforts to demonstrate the impossibility of mira- 
cles have failed even in the hands of such men 
as Hume, because men reason on such subjects 
in a circle. Still it would be strange if there 
was no way to expose a false miracle, especially 
where the results claimed from it are calculated 
to lead men into error. When some unusual 
and extraordinary event which amounts to a 
miracle is said to have occurred one hundred 
years ago, at a time when intelligent and inqui- 
sitive minds were around, and no notice is 
taken of it by them in giving an account of their 



3 1 6 Therapeutce. 

own times, nor by any one else, it is safe to con- 
clude that it never did take place, and that 
those who assert it for the first time at the end 
of the hundred years are engaged in an attempt 
to impose some fraud on their fellow-men. 

From the death of Christ, A.D. 33, to some 
time near A.D. 140, we claim that no writer of 
profane or church history makes mention or 
speaks of the miracles described in the three 
first Gospels, and not those of the fourth until 
long afterwards. It is by negative testimony 
alone that we can arrive at the truth. In the 
first place, did the great Apostle of the Gen- 
tiles perform the miracles that are ascribed to 
him in the Acts ? It is stated that at Lystra he 
cured a man who had been crippled from his 
birth by his simple word ; he exorcised the 
evil spirit that was in Lydia ; he raised Euty- 
chus, who had fallen from a window ; cast 
from his hand, unhurt, the deadly viper; and 
such miraculous powers did he possess, "that 
from his body were brought unto the sick 
handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases de- 
parted from them, and the evil spirits went out 
of them." {Acts xix. 12.) 



Titer apeutce. 3 1 7 

Paul, in his epistles, does not mention or 
refer to any of these wonderful things, and 
does any man suppose, if true, he would fail to 
make some allusion to them ? He neither 
mentions the miracles ascribed to himself, nor 
those described in the four Gospels. Perhaps 
he did not disbelieve in the possibility of mira- 
cles, for such belief was common to the age ; 
but to believe them possible, and believe that 
one has been performed, is another thing. 
" Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought 
among you in all patience, in signs and won- 
ders, and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. xii. 12.) The 
signs and wonders here spoken of were made 
to appear to the Corinthians alone, and have no 
reference to miracles described in the New 
Testament, nor do we know what they were, 
for no notice of them is taken in the Acts. In 
the 1 8th chapter and 9th verse, he says that 
he had a vision which told him not to be 
afraid to speak, and not hold his peace. 
The " mighty deeds " refers to his works as 
an Apostle, and the " signs and wonders," 
rather to the fruits of his preaching than to 
any display of miraculous power. 



318 Therapeutce. 

Had Paul possessed the power attributed to 
him in the Acts, it would have been easier for 
him to have converted the world than to make 
the few converts he made after the labor of a 
life. There were those living who in the course 
of nature might have seen Lazarus, or heard of 
his resurrection, and had it been in the power of 
Paul to have cited his case, or any of the mira- 
culous cures claimed for Christ or any of his dis- 
ciples, the conversion of mankind would have 
been as rapid as the movements of the earth. 
Every pagan temple and altar would have been 
deserted, and their priests have fallen prostrate 
at the feet of Paul. A few pretended miracles 
and revelations on the part of Mahomet estab- 
lished his claim to be the prophet of God, 
and were the means, backed by the scimi- 
tar, of fixing the faith of millions. Paul is 
silent on the subject of the miracles. Barna- 
bas was a companion and fellow-preacher with 
Paul. 

No document extant to-day which relates to 
the Apostolic age is entitled to more, if as much 
confidence and credit as the epistle which bears 
his name. For some reason, it bears less evi- 



Therapeutcz. 319 

dence on its face of fraudulent manipulation than 
any other writing of that time, and it is this evi- 
dence of its purity which excludes it from the 
list of canonical Gospels this day. It has been 
referred to by a long list of fathers, commenc- 
ing with Origen, and coming down to writers of 
our day, as the genuine production of the com- 
panion of the great Apostle. No one, not even 
the Apostles themselves, had more faith in Christ 
than he, and it seems to be the burden of his 
epistle to prove that he was the Saviour who had 
been foretold by the prophets, and whom the 
Jews were anxiously expecting. Had Christ, in 
his ministry among men, done or performed any 
act out of the course of nature which proved him 
superior to other men in his power over the laws 
of nature — anything like command over diseases, 
sickness, to say nothing of death — Barnabas 
would not have failed to dwell upon everything 
of the kind with energy and zeal, because such 
powers would establish what he aimed to prove : 
that is, that Christ was the one spoken of by the 
prophets. But, while he makes the most labored 
application of the prophecies to Christ, he makes 
no allusion to any wonderful work he performed 



3 20 Therapeutcz. 

while he was on the earth. He has not one 
word to say on the subject of the miracles 
ascribed to Christ in the Gospels. 

Much may be inferred from the silence of 
Apollos on the subject of miracles. The inter- 
course between the Jews at Alexandria and Ju- 
dea was constant. Nothing of importance could 
occur in Jerusalem without its being known in a 
short time on the banks of the Nile. The history 
of John the Baptist, the works he did at the Jor- 
dan, and the manner of his death, were all known 
to Apollos from some source, before Josephus 
wrote his history of the Jews ; but it seems he 
had never heard of Christ or any of his wonder- 
ful works. (Acts xviii.) After his conversion 
he taught that Christ was the one expected by 
the Jews, and he undertook to prove it by the 
prophecies in the Old Testament. It would 
have been far easier to establish this by the men- 
tion of the one-half the miracles ascribed to 
Christ in the Gospels than by arguments drawn 
from prophecy, which were vague, obscure, and 
doubtful. But he had never heard of the resur- 
rection of Lazarus, nor of the miracles of the 
loaves and fishes, nor of the wonderful things 



Therapeu tee. 321 

that happened to the swine in the country of the 
Gadarenes. 

There are now extant, writings which learned 
men refer to the Apostolic age, which have no 
value except as they may throw some light on 
the age in which they were written. We may 
mention the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans ; 
the epistles of Paul to Seneca, with Seneca's to 
Paul, and the Acts Paul and Thecla. In none 
of these writings is any mention made of 
the miracles of Paul, or those of the New 
Testament, and the silence of such works is 
only of consequence as it shows the universal 
ignorance of antiquity, or the Apostolic age, on 
the subject ; for it is not to be supposed that 
those things which were standing themes for 
discourses and books in the second century, 
would be unnoticed in the first, if they did exist, 
as well at one time as the other. How can we 
account for the silence of the fathers of the 
church on this subject ? Ignatius and Polycarp 
were so near to the time of Paul and the disci- 
ples, and even Christ, that nothing which con- 
cerned any one of them was unknown, and if 
the miracles ascribed to them had been real 
14* 



322 Therapeutce. 

occurrences, nothing could be more effective in 
the hands of these fathers for the spread of the 
religion of Christianity. 

But there is not only no mention by any one 
of them of the miracles, but the Gospels have 
not yet appeared. Up to the beginning of the 
first century, there is no mention or reference 
made in any writing, either to the Gospels, or 
the miracles they describe. Allusions are made 
in some cases to the Scriptures, in the most 
general terms ; and as the Old Testament writ- 
ings were called Scriptures, and there was the 
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and the epistles of 
Barnabas, James, Peter, and Paul, to which the 
term Scripture might apply, the reference is of 
no value in fixing the date of the Gospels. The 
first distinct and unequivocal notice of the three 
first Gospels is found in Justin Martyr's Apo- 
logy ; and he, who speaks of them for the first 
time, dilates on their contents, and refers to 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke each by name 1 : to 
Matthew nineteen, to Mark four, and to Luke 
fourteen times. From this time to the present 
hour, every book abounds in references to these 
Gospels. 



Therapeutcz. 323 

As yet the Gospel of John had not appeared. 
What is remarkable in the Gospels, referred to 
by Justin, who makes a most elaborate disqui- 
sition on the prophecies, citing many passages 
to prove that Christ was a divine person, whose 
advent had been predicted, he does not make 
mention of any of his miracles, or of those of 
any of his disciples. He speaks of Christ's birth 
from the Virgin Mary, his miraculous concep- 
tion, and all the leading acts of his life, as 
described in Matthew and others, but seems 
to have had no knowledge of the miraculous 
works he performed. 

The silence of Justin on the subject of mira- 
cles, and his extended notice of the prophecies, 
can only be explained by the fact that there ^as 
nothing said about them in the Gospels, and 
that they were inserted at a later day. As the 
quarrels among Christians in the second century 
intensified, and as the authority of the church 
grew to be paramount as we approach the dark 
ages, no doubt the Gospels underwent a revi- 
sion, and the miracles were added as a means to 
excite the awe and command the belief of the 
Pagan world. The spirit for the creation of 



324 Therapeutce. 

miracles commenced in the church before the 
end of the second century — was encouraged by- 
it, and has been continued down to our own 
times, and formed the most effective weapon for 
the conversion of the hordes of the North, and 
for the final overthrow of the followers of Arius. 
Each age had its own miracles, in each of which 
was apportioned the amount of divine energy 
required to subdue the obstinacy and unbelief 
to be overcome. 

The silence of what are called profane writers 
on the subject of the miracles is equally unac- 
countable — if they are to be regarded as real 
occurrences in history — and none as much so as 
that of the Jewish historian, Josephus. Of sa- 
cerdotal extraction, and of royal descent, Flavi- 
us Josephus was born A.D. 37. He was alive 
in A.D. 96, but the time and manner of his 
death is unknown. His works comprise a com-; 
plete history of the Jews, and omit nothing that 
was worthy of notice. He was a youth of great 
ability and promise, and says of himself, ''When 
I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, 
I was commended by all for the love I had for 
learning, on which account the high priest and 



TherapeutcB. 325 

principal men of the city came frequently to me 
together, in order to know my opinion about 
the accurate understanding of points of law." 
(Life of Josephus, sec. 1.) 

Here we have a historian of the right kind, 
living so near the time that he must have seen 
and conversed with those who had seen and 
known Christ and his disciples. How are we 
to regard his silence ? Had Christ been the 
character which many suppose he was, a teach- 
er endowed beyond all other men, with a divine 
genius to declare the doctrines which are to 
govern man in his relations towards the Creator 
and towards each other, we can well understand 
why, in A.D. 93, when Josephus wrote the his- 
tory of the Jews, he failed to notice him. His 
ministry extended through a period of only 
three years, at a time when the Jewish people 
were chafing under the yoke of the Romans, 
and were preparing for a final struggle with the 
conquerors. At such a time, the presence of 
such a person as Christ, who taught men to for- 
give their enemies, to love their neighbors as 
themselves, and to cultivate feelings which dis- 
pose mankind to peace and charity, would most 



326 Therapeutcz. 

likely pass unnoticed. If Christ was more than 
a great teacher — if he were the second person 
in the Godhead, who condescended to visit the 
earth to instruct mankind, and while here per- 
formed the wonderful works spoken of in the 
Gospels, then there is no way in which we can 
account for the silence of the Jewish historian. 
We are forced to admit that the Son of God, 
who took up his abode among men to convince 
and instruct them, failed to make his presence 
known and felt so as to attract the notice of him 
who undertook to give a minute account of 
what happened at the time, and in the country 
where he preached and taught. 

The attempt in the fourth century to force 
into history, between the regular course of 
events, a passage intended to break the force of 
total unconsciousness on the part of Josephus, 
that there was such a person as Christ, to the 
eye of the critic is infinitely more damaging 
than complete silence. A quarrel, which led to 
a sedition, sprang up in Jerusalem, about the use 
made by Pilate of sacred money, to bring water 
into the city. " About the same time, also, an- 
other sad calamity happened, which put the Jews 



TherapeutcE. 327 

into disorder." A Roman woman called Pau- 
lina, through the connivance of some of the 
gods of Isis, was seduced by a person of the 
name of Mundus. {Antiq., book xviii. chap, 3.) 
Between these two events, is wedged, or 
forced in, a paragraph which contains all the 
great historian has to say of Christ, and the 
events of his life. Twenty-nine lines are taken 
to tell about the troubles growing out of the 
misapplication of the sacred money ; one hun- 
dred and thirty-one about Paulina and her mis- 
fortunes, and sixteen are all that the historian 
requires to inform us of all he knows about 
Christ. Much better had he said nothing. 

If Josephus makes no mention of Christ and 
his miracles, where must we look ? It is in vain 
to search among the writers of Greece and 
Rome. Out of the nine reasons given by Dr. 
Lardner for believing the passage from Jose- 
phus in relation to Christ spurious, the first is 
sufficient : it was never quoted, or referred 
to, by any writer previous to Eusebius, who 
wrote in the fourth century. 



328 Therapeutce. 



CHAPTER XXV. 

Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. 

THIS epistle has been the source of more con- 
troversy than any other book of the New Tes- 
tament. It has been the cause of much useless 
labor and unprofitable research. In the first 
place, was Paul the author ? Tertullian ascribes 
it to Barnabas ; Grotius to St. Luke, and Lu- 
ther the reformer thought it was written by 
Apollos, mentioned in the Acts ; but the tes- 
timony of ecclesiastical antiquity is all in favor 
of Paul as the author. Allusions are made to 
it in the epistles of Ignatius about A. D. 107. 
It is also referred to by Polycarp, Bishop of 
Smyrna in the year A. D. 108. 

Internal evidence, supplied by the epistle itself, 
is conclusive that Paul was the writer. No one 
better than he understood the veneration in 
which the Levitical law was held by the Jewish 
people, and the tenacity with which they ad- 
hered to it. As he believed that this law had 



Therapeutce. 329 

passed away, and that the Lord had made a 
new covenant with the Jewish nation, it was 
natural for him to labor to open the eyes of his 
countrymen, and bring them under the light of the 
new dispensation. It was for this reason, when 
he entered into a place for the first time, that he 
always began to teach in the synagogue. If 
Paul wrote to the Hebrews at all, it would be 
just such an epistle as the one ascribed to him, 
except certain portions, which were clearly 
written after the Pauline period of Christianity 
had passed away. 

Again, it has been a question as to the lan- 
guage in which this epistle was first written. 
At the time of Paul, the original Hebrew was 
understood by few, and had ceased to be the 
language of the Jews. The original Hebrew 
was broken in upon by several dialects — such 
as the East Aramaean, or Chaldee, and the 
West Aramaean, or Syriac. The universal lan- 
guage of the day was Greek, and no doubt Paul 
adopted it in writing to the Hebrews, who were 
dispersed over Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa. 

As the initiatory formula usual in the epistles 
of Paul is wanting in this, it has been ques- 



33° Therapeutcz. 

tioned whether it was really an epistle, or only 
a discourse intended for the general reader. The 
want of the usual formula can be easily account- 
ed for, when the mind becomes convinced that 
the first chapter is not the production of Paul. 
That it was written as it now stands by the for- 
gers of the second century admits of no doubt. 
The design of the writer is exposed in the 
very first and second verses of the first chapter. 
" God, who at sundry times and in divers man- 
ners spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us 
by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things, by whom also he made the worlds." 

Here Christ is made the Creator by whom 
the worlds were made. Again: "Who being 
the brightness of his glory, and the express 
image of his person, and upholding all things by 
the word of his power, when he had by himself 
purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of 
the Majesty on high ; being made so much bet- 
ter than the angels, as he hath by inheritance 
obtained a more excellent name than they. For 
unto which of the angels said he at any time, 
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 



Therapeutce. 331 

thee ? And again, I will be to him a Father, and 
he shall be to me a Son ? And again, when he 
bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he 
saith, And let all the angels of God worship 
him." (Heb. i. 3-6.) 

Here we find condensed into a few verses, 
and declared in the most pointed language, the 
Godship of Christ, first proclaimed by the men 
of the second century, and which is in direct 
conflict with the remainder of the Epistle, and 
with what Paul taught during his whole life. 

Commencing at the ninth verse of the second 
chapter, Paul says : " But we see Jesus, who 
was made a little lower than the angels for 
the suffering of death, crowned with glory and 
honor ; that he by the grace of God should taste 
death for every man." " For verily he took not 
on him the nature of angels ; but he took on 
him the seed of Abraham." (Chap. ii. 16.) 
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the 
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High 
Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus ; who was 
faithful to him who appointed him, as also 
Moses was faithful in all his house. For this 
man was accounted worthy of more glory than 



332 Therapeutcz. 

Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the 
house hath more honor than the house. For 
every house is builded by some man ; but he 
that built all things is God." (Chap. iii. 

i-5.) 

On the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth verses 
of the second chapter, Paul declares that to 
angels " is given the government of the world to 
come ; " and to man, who was made but little 
lower than the angels, was consigned the gov- 
ernment of the earth. All men, according to 
Paul, like Jesus, were born but little lower than 
the angels — and Christ by him is put on a level 
with all humanity. It is evident that the first 
chapter, as written by Paul, has been suppressed, 
and the one which has descended to us is made 
to take its place. It is not possible that Paul 
wrote the first and second chapters as they now 
stand. In the one case Christ is made more 
than the angels ; and in the other case he is 
made less. In the one case he is the Creator 
of the world, " upholding all things by the 
word of his power ;" in the other he is a High 
Priest of the order of Melchisedec, and one of 
the descendants of Abraham. In the first chap- 



Therapeu tee. 3 3 3 

ter he formed the world, and in the third chap- 
ter it is said, " He who built all things is God." 
The doctrines here declared are unreconcilable, 
but it is not difficult to distinguish between 
those of Paul and those of the men of the 
second century. 

Paul speaks of three orders of the priesthood : 
that of Melchisedec, that under the Levitical 
law, and that under the new covenant, with 
Christ at the head. What was the character of 
the priesthood of the order of Melchisedec, Paul 
does not say — nor do we know where to look 
for information on the subject. He was " with- 
out father, without mother, without descent, 
having neither beginning of days, nor end of 
life ; but made like unto the Son of God: abideth 
a priest continually." (Chap. vii. 3.) When we 
are informed in the same chapter that Christ is 
a priest after the order of Melchisedec, " who is 
made, not after the law of a carnal command- 
ment, but after the power of an endless life " 
(ver. 16), we detect the insidious and subtle 
poison of the Alexandrian school. 

Here we have a Logos, who was in the be- 
ginning, and who would continue through all 



334 Therapetitcz. 

time, which could never be true of any of the 
descendants of Abraham. The priesthood un- 
der the Levitical law, Paul claimed, had 
passed away, and was succeeded by a much 
better one with Christ as its head. The last was 
superior to the old because it would " continue 
forever, an unchangeable priesthood." (Chap, 
vii. 24.) In this new and better dispensation, 
Christ is as superior to Moses and Aaron, as the 
new covenant is superior to the old. Christ is 
called a High Priest, " a minister of the sanctu- 
ary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord 
pitched, and not man." (Chap. viii. 2.) 

If Christ was the Son of God, born of a virgin, 
when Paul was instructing his countrymen in 
the mysteries of the new covenant, and was 
pointing out to them the relation which Christ 
bore to the same, as compared with Moses un- 
der the old, how happened it that he fails to 
make mention of this important fact altogether ? 
How can we account for the silence of Paul at 
such a time on a subject of such vital, import- 
ance ? He was a man of learning, and well 
versed in all that was written by the Hebrew 
prophets ; and if the fourteenth verse of the 



Therapeutcz. 335 

seventh chapter of Isaiah had any application to 
Christ, or any other prophecy in the Old Testa- 
ment, why did he not point them out to his 
countrymen, and in this way prove that Christ 
was not only superior to Moses, but to the 
angels ? Why call him a High Priest, and ad- 
mit his Jewish descent, from the father of the 
Hebrew nation ? Who so well as Paul could 
define the status of Christ under the new cove- 
nant ? His numerous visits to Jerusalem, not 
long after Christ's death, his intimacy with all the 
disciples, gave him every and ample means for 
information ; and the deep interest he took in 
every particular which related to Christ stimu- 
lated inquiry ; and whatever he found that was 
important to be known as a part of the new 
faith, he would not fail to proclaim in tones of 
thunder, from the Euphrates to the Tiber. 

We can well imagine his astonishment when 
the doctrines of the Greek school first began to 
make headway in his little churches. We can 
form some idea of his feelings by reading the 
eleventh and twelfth chapters in the second 
epistle to the Corinthians: "Would to God ye 
could bear with me a little in my folly : and 



336 Therapeutcz. 

indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over 
you with godly jealousy : for I have espoused 
you to one husband, that I may present you as 
a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by 
any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through 
his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted 
from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he 
that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we 
have not preached, or if ye received another 
spirit, which ye have not received, or another 
gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might 
well bear with him." (2 Cor. xi. 1-4.) Ren- 
dered into plain language, he says : Would to 
God you would pardon my zeal and anxiety on 
your account. Having instructed you in the 
religion of Christ, I am jealous and over-anx- 
ious that you should stand as examples of pure 
Christianity, and not surrender your pure and 
virgin faith in Christ, carried away by the sub- 
tle doctrines of cunning men. If any one 
speaks of Christ, and claims that he is any- 
thing different from what I have taught you — 
or if any one has preached to you a different 
religion or a different gospel, from that which 
you learned of me, you show your forbearance 



Therapeutcz. 337 

if you do not visit your anger upon them, who 
thus labor to mislead and deceive you. 

Throughout these two chapters Paul shows 
deep sorrow on account of the progress of the 
new faith, and with his expressions of regret, 
he mingles words of reproof. The troubles 
growing out of it followed him through life. 
They harassed him in his prison. He lived to 
see all Asia turned away from him. With an 
aching heart he makes one last request of Tim- 
othy : " And the things that thou hast heard of 
me among many witnesses, the same commit 
thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach 
others also." (2 Tim. ii. 2.) 
15 



Therapeutce. 339 



APPENDIX 



(A.) 

FEW passages from history have given rise to 
more discussion than the following from Sue- 
tonius : " He," meaning the Emperor Claudius, 
"banished all the Jews, who were continually 
making disturbance, at the instigation of one 
Crestus." (Life of Claudius, sec. 25.) The ori- 
ginal is as follows : " Judceos, impulsore Chresto, 
assidue tumultuanies , Roma expulit." Does this 
order of banishment refer to the Christians ? Dr. 
Lardner and others think not. All difficulties 
vanish when we bear in mind, that the Chris- 
tians then at Rome were Jewish converts from 
Judea. The writer knew little about Christians, 
and knowing them to be Jews, he says all Jews 
were banished, which included the Jewish con- 



34° Titer apeutcz 

verts as well as those who opposed Christianity. 
All engaged in the riot were included, and none 
but Jews were. These Jews were constantly 
making disturbance at the instigation of one 
Crestus : that is, they were quarrelling about 
Crestus, which was a continual subject of quar- 
rel among the converted and unconverted Jews 
everywhere. The writer knew so little about 
Christ that he failed to get the name correct, or 
there may have been a mistake on the part of 
the transcribers. 

(B.) 

As a proof that the most learned scholars and 
correct thinkers, when under the influence of an 
early bias, are liable to the most gross mistakes 
and delusions, the following writers have given 
the authority of their names to the belief, that 
Peter uses the name Babylon in a figurative 
sense : Grotius, Macknight, Hale, Bishop Tom- 
line, Whitby, and Lardner. But a large ma- 
jority of writers hold to the literal meaning. 
Bishop Pearson, Le Clerk, and Mills think that 
Peter speaks of Babylon in Egypt. Beza, Eras- 



Therapeutcs. 341 

mus, Drusius, Dr. Cave, Lightfoot, Basnage, 
Beausobre, Dr. Benson, A. Clarke think that 
Peter intended Babylon in Assyria ; Michaelis, 
that Babylon in Mesopotamia was meant. The 
frequent use of the word Babylon in the Reve- 
lation attributed to St. John, which there 
stands for Rome, is the principal argument used 
by those who contend for a figurative sense. 
This book is the most impious and malignant 
production among all the forgeries of the second 
century, and its design can be readily exposed, 
if it was worth the time to do it. Christ, whose 
last words were used in prayer for the forgive- 
ness of his enemies, is made through St. John 
to pour forth feelings full of hatred against those 
who disagreed with the writer on matters of 
doctrine, especially the followers of Paul. He 
hurls his envenomed shaft at the heart of the 
great Apostle. It was at Ephesus where the 
war was warmest between Paul's friends and the 
followers of the Alexandrian school. To the 
church at that place, Christ is made to say : "I 
know thy works, and thy labor, and thy pa- 
tience, and how thou canst not bear them which 
are evil: and thou hast tried them which say 



34 2 Therapentcz. 

they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found 
them liars" (Revelation ii. 2.) Who could 
use such language but a malignant partisan ? 
Christ, the Son of God, is made to use the lan- 
guage of a bar-room bully. When will those 
who profess to be Christians, learn that Christ 
was all kindness, gentleness, and love. They 
admit the authenticity and divine origin of wri- 
tings that prove the Son of God was not even a 
gentleman. 

(C) 

The writings ascribed to the Fathers, espe- 
cially Polycarp and Ignatius, are entitled to 
little consideration ; for nothing is clearer than 
that their names were used by the men of the 
second century to supply proof when disputes 
sprang up, or give authority to doctrines when 
divisions arose. The introduction to the epistle 
of Ignatius, addressed: to the church at Rome, 
is a bare-faced attempt to prove that there was 
a church at Rome during the reign of Trajan, at 
the beginning of the second century. It was 
written not only to prove that there was a 
church at Rome at that time, but that it was the 



Therapeutce. 343 

bank or depository of divine riches, "wholly, 
filled with the grace of God, and entirely cleansed 
from any other doctrine.''' But we submit the 
whole passage to the judgment of the reader. 
" Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to 
the Church which hath obtained mercy in the 
majesty of the Most High Father, and his only 
Son Jesus Christ, beloved and illuminated 
through the will of him who willeth all things, 
which are according to the love of Jesus Christ, 
our God ; (to the church) which presides also 
in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy 
of God, and of all honor and blessing and praise ; 
worthy to receive that which she wishes, chaste, 
and pre-eminent in charity, bearing the name 
of Christ and of the Father, which I salute in 
the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father : 
to those who are united both in flesh and spirit 
to all his commands, and wholly filled with the 
grace of God, and entirely cleansed from the 
stain of any other doctrine, be all undefiled joy 
in Jesus Christ our God." 

The forger overdid the work in which he was 
engaged. This language, addressed to a church 
illuminated with all things according to the will 



344 Therapeutce. 

of Christ and God, and worthy to receive all 
blessings and praise, proves that the passage 
was written at a time when the dogma of the 
Apostolic succession was in vogue, and Rome 
was putting forth claims to spiritual supremacy.* 
No time was more unpropitious to prove that 
there was such a church at Rome, than that 

* The strong probability is, that the letter of Ignatius is a 
forgery throughout, and was gotten up for the sake of the intro- 
duction. Condemned -by Trajan, and ordered to be carried to 
Rome to be devoured by wild beasts, for the amusement of the 
people, it is claimed the letter was written on his way to that 
city. Why he should write to the church at Rome while on his 
way there, is something remarkable, since there is nothing in the 
letter that was important to be known to the Christians, if there 
was any there, before his arrival. The epistle breathes a spirit 
which is unnatural and repugnant to every feeling of humanity. 
The following is a specimen of the whole. "May I enjoy the 
wild beasts which are prepared for me ; and pray that they may 
be found ready for me : which I will even encourage to devour 
me all at once, and not fear to touch me, as they have some 
others. And if they refuse, and will not, I will compel them." 
(Sec. 5.) Why would Ignatius write an epistle of this character 
to the Romans while he was on the way to Rome himself? espe- 
cially "as he was pressed by the soldiers to arrive at the great 
city before the public spectacle, that he might be delivered to 
the wild beasts." Why import a Christian Bishop from Antioch 
for the wild beasts of the Amphitheatre, if there was one to be 



Therapeutce. 345 

embraced in the reign of Trajan, when Chris- 
tianity was a crime, which subjected the believer 
to the penalty of death. There being no Chris- 
tians in Rome from the death of Paul to the 
time of Hadrian, it leaves the time to be taken 
up by traditions, which was gladly seized upon 
by Irenaeus, who populated it with Bishops and 
others, the offspring of his own imagination. 

(D.) 

Writers in the third and fourth centuries, for 
reasons sufficiently obvious, take pleasure in 
scandalizing the name of Domitian as the perse- 
cutor of Christians, and the great enemy of the 
Christian cause. It is claimed he put to death 
many persons accused of Atheism, the common 
charge against Christians, on account of their re- 
fusal to offer incense or to worship the ancient 
gods of Rome. Flavius Clemens, his cousin, is 
given as an instance. Now hear what a co- 
temporary historian has to say on the subject : 

found in the mean time in Rome ? Where was Clement, the 
third Bishop ? Our confidence is not increased in the genuine- 
ness of this letter, that the first distinct reference is made to it by 
Irenaeus. 

15* 



346 Therapeutcz. 

" Flavius Clemens, his cousin-german, a man 
contemptible for his indolence, whose sons, then 
of tender age, he had avowedly destined for his 
successor, and taking from them his former 
names, had ordered one to be called Vespasian, 
and the other Domitian, he suddenly put to 
death upon some slight suspicion, almost before 
the father was put out of his consulship. " (Suet. , 
Life of Domitiaji, sec. 15.) As the tyrant af- 
fected great reverence for the gods, he would not 
fail to visit the most severe punishment on those 
whom he judged guilty of irreverence, and as 
the Christians of that day were bold in the face 
of the most imminent danger, they could not 
escape the vengeance of the tyrant, had there 
been any in Rome upon whom he could lay his 
hands. With a disposition that was willing to 
furnish any number of victims, Eusebius has 
succeeded in giving the name of a single one. 
He says, " At the same time, for professing 
Christ, Flavius Domitilla, the niece of Flavius 
Clemens, one of the consuls of Rome at that 
time, was transported, with many others, to the 
Isle of Pontia." (Eus., E. H. , book iii. chap. 18.) 
The truthful father has succeeded in giving the 



Therapeutce. 347 

name of one Christian who had suffered under 
the reign of Domitian, and that was a case of 
banishment. 

As to the expression, " and many others," it 
is only an easy way of conveying a, falsehood 
without incurring the risk of detection. The 
story of John's banishment to the Isle of Pat- 
mos, like everything else which relates to this 
Apostle, is founded on a tradition of the third 
century, and is unworthy of serious notice. The 
story told by liegesippus, of the treatment re- 
ceived by the grandchildren of Jude, called the 
brother of Jesus, at the hands of Domitian, if 
entitled to any credit at all, only goes to refute 
the charges made against him. As the story 
runs, these children were brought before him 
on the charge of being Christians. After hear- 
ing what they had to say, " Domitian dismissed 
them — made no reply — but treating them with 
contempt as simpletons, commanded them to 
be dismissed, and, by a decree, ordered the 
persecution . to cease. Thus delivered, they 
ruled the churches, both as witnesses and rela- 
tions of the Lord. Such is the statement of 
Hegesippus," says Eusebius (bookiii. chap. 20). 



348 Therapeutce. 

Here is a clear case for persecution ; but pro- 
ceedings are dismissed, and those who were the 
objects of it treated with contempt. 

Suetonius makes special mention of the perse- 
cution of the Jews under the reign of Domitian, 
who was governed, in their case, by his love of 
money rather than his regard for the cause of 
religion. The vast amount of money expended 
by him in the erection of palaces and public edi- 
fices had ruined his finances, which he undertook 
to relieve by the confiscation of the large es- 
tates and wealth in the hands of this people. 
To his rapacity there was no limit in such cases, 
short of the ruin of his victims. It is in vain to 
attempt to relieve the memory of the son of 
Vespasian and brother of Titus from the igno- 
miny of the most odious and detestable crimes. 
From Augustus to Trajan, no one who bore the 
name of emperor is more justly entitled to the 
name of monster. He put to death his own 
cousin, Flavius Sabinus, because, upon his being 
chosen at the consular election to that office, the 
public crier had, by a blunder, declared him to 
the people — not consul, but emperor. Virtue 
as well as vice stood in awe in his presence. 



Thei'apeiitce. 349 

The genius and learning of Tacitus and Pliny 
made it unsafe for them to remain in Rome, and 
both avoided danger by seeking obscurity. But 
to his other crimes are not to be added the mur- 
der of Christians, who were wise and cautious 
enough to avoid his presence. 

The following dates are assigned to the epis- 
tles of Paul by Dr. Lardner and others : — 

EPISTLES. PLACES. A.D. 

1 Thessalonians Corinth. 52 

2 Thessalonians Corinth 52 

Galatians. Corinth. . \ at *e close of. . . . 52 



or early in 53 

1 Corinthians Ephesus 57 

Romans Corinth., i about the end of 57 

I or the beginning of 58 

' ' ( (perhaps from Philippi), \ -> 

Ephesians Rome 61 

™,m- •„ „ -r> w j before the end of . . 62 

rmlippians Rome. . . i .-, -, . • f/: 

rr ( or the beginning of 63 

Colossians Rome. ^.62 

Philemon Rome. . A about / he end of - •% 

I or early in . . . .63 

Tj p -u p j Italy ) about the end of. .62 

( (perhaps from Rome), ) or early in. ....... 63 

1 Timothy Macedonia 64 

Titus Macedonia 64 

2 Timothy Rome 65 



